Blossom HCG Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Relatives felt that their family members received care that was safe and staff supporting them were kind and understood peoples needs. Care plans and risk assessments sometimes lacked the necessary detail to support staff with managing specific support needs.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People who use services and those close to them were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it centred around them and their needs. One relative said, “In my opinion they are an excellent care provider. [Relative] has many opportunities to go out and participate in many varied activities. Only last week they went to London, they also visited Legoland and went bowling locally. They were then also accompanied to an assessment for a new wheelchair locally." People and their relatives told us staff were responsive to their changing needs and delivered person-centred, sensitive care in the way that embodied warmth and kindness. One relative gave us an example of staff approach. They said, "[Person] has received constant support from the first day he arrived at his home. They have been cared for by a team who are professional, caring and friendly and always have [persons] best interests at heart." Daily records showed people were receiving the care and individual support they required as identified in their care plans.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff were able to describe peoples likes and dislikes. One staff member said, “Due to the person being non-vocal, they do not vocally express their emotions however, I know by their body movement and vocal noises how they are feeling.” Staff knew people’s individual preferences and capabilities, which helped guide staff to offer person centred care. Staff when talking to us were able to tell us in detail what support people needed and what their preferences were. For example, how people liked their drinks and what activities people liked to take part in.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were enabled by staff to engage in meaningful activities and hobbies that they enjoyed, were interested in, which were sought through conversations with both them and their relatives. A relative told us, "[Person] has always been helped to achieve activities, both at [persons] request and those suggested by staff, both in personal care and recreational activities." Relatives felt that if they had to complain, they would be taken seriously and treated with compassion. One relative said, "We have always found the management team to be very approachable when we have any concerns & together we have always found solutions." We received several additional positive comments about the response to concerns with some relatives saying they had never had cause to raise any concerns or complaints.

Staff gave examples about how they adapted the support they provided individuals following feedback from people about their likes and dislikes. This showed that staff acknowledged the importance of recognising people as individuals. Staff knew how to support people to ensure their voices were heard and frequently advocated for people when needed to ensure they were supported well. Staff and the management team knew how to access advocacy services for people if needed should there be a formal decision requiring impartial support.

There was a complaints procedure in place to allow people, relatives or visitors to raise any concerns they may have with the management team. Records showed that this has been followed effectively, complaints were investigated and a response provided to the person who raised it. The outcome of complaints was not always shared across the wider team to enable shared learning. We saw feedback surveys had been completed for staff, but saw that these surveys did not include feedback from people, relatives or visiting professionals. Team meetings were held for staff and senior management. People’s needs were not always discussed however, particularly when there had been a significant incident within the particular service. Minutes showed there was no organisational approach to a standard agenda, and key areas such as safeguarding, lessons learned and reflective practise, incidents and trends etc were not reviewed as a team. Feedback was not sought from management about the running of the company with staff requests noted as requesting beanbags, as opposed to being able to bring ideas, suggestions or feedback about the running of the organisation. We did not see records of formal people or relative meetings to enable feedback to be provided about each service and it's operation. These forums would enable issues to be documented and carried out in a timely manner. One relative told us, "Our only issue which is ongoing is that maintenance & repairs to the property have not always been carried out in a timely manner. Of course this is not a reflection in the care, however some of the repairs could lead to safety issues." The provider told us they would review their meetings to ensure they engage with all stakeholders to share information, seek feedback and suggestions and ensure actions are documented and carried through.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.