Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Bluebell House Residential Care Home, Ventnor.

Bluebell House Residential Care Home in Ventnor is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia and mental health conditions. The last inspection date here was 4th January 2020

Bluebell House Residential Care Home is managed by In Safe Hands Home Care Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Bluebell House Residential Care Home
      74-76 Mitchell Avenue
      Ventnor
      PO38 1DS
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01983854737

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-01-04
    Last Published 2018-11-22

Local Authority:

    Isle of Wight

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

28th September 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on the 28 September and 4 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Bluebell House Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 19 older people. There were 18 people, some living with dementia, at the home at the time of the inspection. The home is situated in a residential area of Ventnor. It is an adapted building with bedrooms, many with en-suite facilities, provided over two floors in single occupancy rooms. A stair lift provides access between the floors. There is one communal lounge, a dining room and appropriate toilet, bathing and shower facilities. Externally there is a level enclosed decking area to the rear of the home and a small seating area to the front of the home.

Bluebell House Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The service was also owned by the registered manager.

Where we identified concerns in respect of the time some people were receiving non- essential personal care and recruitment checks the registered provider reacted to address the issues and took action to amend staff shift times and daily routines. However, we cannot be assured that, had we not identified the concerns that this would have occurred.

Risks to people were assessed and measures had been taken to mitigate these. Incidents and accidents were reviewed and action had been taken to reduce the likelihood of any reoccurrence. The premises and equipment were safely maintained.

Sufficient numbers of care staff were deployed to meet people's needs. Staff were trained, supervised and felt supported and valued. Recruitment checks were made to ensure staff were suitable to work in a care setting.

People received personalised care which was responsive to their personal and healthcare needs.

Medicines were safely managed. The home was clean and hygienic.

People's nutritional needs were assessed and people were supported to eat and drink. There was a choice of food.

Staff spoke with people in a polite and caring manner Care was individualised and reflected people's preferences and changing needs. People's privacy and dignity were promoted.

Some activities were provided and the registered manager was acting to improve staff availability to provide activities.

There was an effective complaints procedure in place. People and their relatives confirmed they were listened to and changes were made when requested.

People and their relatives had opportunities to express their views about the service and were consulted about their care. Audits were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service, and identify areas for ongoing improvement.

15th June 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 15 and 23 June 2016 and was unannounced. The home provides accommodation for up to 19 people, including some people living with dementia care needs. There were 17 people living at the home when we visited. The home was based on two floors connected by stair lifts; there was a lounge and a dining room where people were able to socialise.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

We previously inspected Bluebell House in April 2015 when we identified areas the home could improve. At this inspection we found appropriate action had been taken.

Providers are required to notify CQC of significant events, so we can monitor occurrences and prioritise our work. We found one occurrence had not been notified to CQC as required, although it had been reported to the local authority and appropriate action taken by the registered manager. The registered manager stated they would ensure this did not happen again.

Recruitment procedures had not ensured that all required information and pre-employment checks had been completed before new staff commenced employment.

People felt safe at Bluebell House. Care staff knew how to prevent, identify and report abuse. Risks to people were managed appropriately and there was a system in place to analyse and learn lessons from accidents and incidents that occurred.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for obtaining, storing, administering and disposing of medicines. People received their medicines when needed from staff who were suitably trained.

People liked the food, had enough to eat and drink and received appropriate support to eat when needed. They were supported to access healthcare services, including doctors, nurses and specialists.

People had confidence in the knowledge and the ability of staff to provide effective care; staff were suitably trained and supported in their work. People felt staff were available when they required them.

Staff followed the principles of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and freedom. They sought consent from people before providing care and support.

People were cared for with kindness and compassion. Interactions between people and staff were positive and staff clearly knew people well. People’s privacy and dignity were protected at all times.

People received personalised care and support that met their needs and were involved in planning the care and support they received. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s individual support needs and responded promptly when their needs changed. Care plans provided sufficient information to enable staff to provide care in a consistent way.

People were encouraged to make choices about every aspect of their lives. They were able to take part in activities suited to their interests. People knew how to raise concerns and the provider acted on feedback from people.

People were happy living at Bluebell House and told us it was run well. Staff enjoyed their work, were motivated and felt supported by the registered manager.

The manager promoted an open and transparent culture. Visitors were welcomed at any time. The environment was supportive of people living with dementia and people had access to the outdoors and fresh air.

There was an effective quality assurance system in place, together with a development to further improve the quality and safety of the service.

22nd July 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with eight of the 15 people living at the home and eight visitors. We also spoke with the registered manager and staff. We observed care in communal areas and viewed records relating to care, staffing and the management of the home.

We considered seven outcomes during this inspection. These being

Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services

Outcome 7 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse

Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises

Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers

Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of the service

Outcome 20 Notification of other incidents

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask.

Is the service safe?

People told us they were happy with the service they received. They said they felt safe and had the same staff who knew how to help them. One visitor said, “I visit as often as I can and (my relative) always seems clean and well cared for. I have no worries about them when I’m not here”. Although all staff had not completed specific safeguarding training they were able to tell us what they would do if they had any concerns about people’s safety or welfare.

Systems were in place to deal with emergencies that could be predicted to happen. Staff had acted promptly to seek medical advice when a person had been injured following a fall. Equipment was in place to alert staff to vulnerable people who may be moving around their bedrooms and at risk of falling.

We found the home had not completed individual mental capacity assessments before allowing others, such as relatives, to make decisions on behalf of people. Otherwise, we found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

We found the home did not have full information about all staff to demonstrate they were suitable people to work with vulnerable adults. All staff had not completed all necessary training. This was especially linked to apprentices working in the home. They had been placed there by a training provider, but were now working as full members of the staff team.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring they have all necessary information about all staff and that all staff have completed all essential training.

Is the service effective?

Not all aspects of the service were effective. People were receiving a service which met their needs. The manager and staff were knowledgeable about people's care needs and how to meet them. However, care plans and risk assessments had not been updated to reflect changes in people’s needs. The manager and staff were aware of who to contact for specialist advice and when this may be required. We saw where necessary external health professionals were appropriately contacted. Records of care showed people had received care. We spoke with a visiting external health professional who said people’s needs were met and staff were available to support them when they visited the home.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring care records and risk assessments accurately reflect people’s current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People said they were treated with respect and dignity by the care staff. People also told us they were happy with the way they were supported. People said they were happy living at the home. One said “I am very happy; the staff are wonderful and so helpful”. Another person told us “I came in for a short stay after coming out of hospital. I went home and soon decided to return as I felt it was the best thing to do. I have not regretted my decision”.

Staff said they had time to meet people’s needs and could provide the care people needed. Staff were aware of people’s rights and respected these.

Is the service responsive?

Procedures were in place to manage unexpected events which could interrupt the smooth running of the service. Senior staff were aware of what they should do in the event of an emergency. Fire detection equipment was checked regularly and action had been taken to address improvements required following an external health and safety audit.

Where we identified missing information or concerns during the inspection the manager acted promptly. For example, we identified that there was no evidence that a person who was on bed rest was receiving regular changes of position. During the inspection the manager devised a turning record form and put this into use.

Is the service well-led?

The provider is a limited company with two directors. Both directors were actively involved in the running of the home and spent three days per week there. One was the registered manager. In the four months they have owned the home they have identified and initiated improvements to the environment including redecoration of bedrooms. However, audits of care records, including medication administration records, were not being completed. Records did not always accurately reflect the way people’s care needs should be met especially where people’s needs had changed. Staff meetings had been held monthly to keep staff informed of any changes and remind them of procedures. The manager had contracted with external organisations to provide training for staff and to provide staff management support should this be required.

We identified that we had not been notified about all incidents which the registered person was required to inform us about.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring we are informed about all notifiable incidents and how they intend to monitor the quality of the service provided.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 17 and 21 April 2015 and was unannounced. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 19 people, including some people living with dementia. There were 16 people living at the service when we visited.

There was a registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection, on 24 and 26 June 2014 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to care plans, risk assessments, recruitment procedures and staff training and supervision. The provider did not have an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received and had not notified the commission of incidents they are required to notify us about. We set compliance actions and the provider sent us an action plan telling us they would meet the requirements of the regulations by 30 October 2014. At this inspection we found action had been taken to make these improvements.

We found two breaches of the health and Social care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People’s safety was being compromised in several areas. This included records and information relating to the control of infections which was not available. In addition the laundry area did not have hand washing facilities placing people at risk of infection although the home was visibly clean.

The Mental capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was not always being followed. People’s ability to make decisions had not been recorded appropriately, in a way that showed the principles of the MCA had been complied with. Family members told us decisions had been discussed with them, but best interest decisions had not been recorded. Staff were offering people choices and respecting their decisions appropriately.

People were not receiving the mental and physical stimulation they required as there were limited activities, although the registered manager had plans to develop activities to ensure these met people’s individual needs and interests.

Quality assurance systems were informal and often not recorded. Some essential audits such as for infection control had not been carried out.

People and relatives were positive about the service they received. They praised the staff and care provided. People were also positive about meals and the support they received to ensure they had a nutritious diet.

Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to be cared for and staff were aware of people’s individual care needs. Records of care provided showed people were receiving the care they required. They had access to healthcare services and were referred to doctors and specialists when needed. Reviews of care involving people or relatives where people lacked capacity were conducted regularly.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Contingency arrangements were in place to ensure staffing levels remained safe. The recruitment process was safe and ensured staff were suitable for their role. Staff were now receiving appropriate training and were supported through the use of one to one supervision.

People and relatives were able to complain or raise issues on an informal basis with the registered manager and were confident these would be resolved. This contributed to an open and transparent culture within the home. Visitors were welcomed and there were good working relationships with external professionals. Staff worked well together which created a relaxed and happy atmosphere, which was reflected in people’s care. The registered manager was aware of key strengths and areas for development of the service and there were continuing plans for the improvement of the environment.

There was a breach of Regulations 12 and 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

 

 

Latest Additions: