Bluebell Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. People felt staff were often rushed during interactions with them. People were supported to be independent and have choice and control in their lives. People were well-cared for. Staff interacted calmly, attentively and warmly with people. However, people told us there were times when staff were busier and the care felt more practical than personal. People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff understood person-centred care and demonstrated how people were given choice and control in their lives. We observed staff engaging people in a person-centred way.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives were treated with kindness. One person’s husband visited the service every day and was supported to have lunch with his wife so they could maintain their relationship. People said, “Everyone is so kind,” and “[Staff] have patience and kindness.”

Staff treated people with kindness. Treating people with dignity and respect was discussed with staff during supervisions. Staff spoke about people with genuine regard for their care.

Healthcare partners had no concerns about the way staff looked after people. Their comments included, “Staff have the right skills to support people and are good at picking up on (health) issues quickly.”

People were well-treated and supported. Staff were engaging people, noticing when they weren’t happy or when they needed additional support. During lunchtime observations we saw people being encouraged to eat, and tempted with other options when they didn’t eat much. Staff engaged people in looking at their photo albums or talking about things that were important to them, which people clearly enjoyed.

People felt that permanent staff knew them well. People appeared relaxed and comfortable around staff. A relative said, “[Person] has got to know the staff, [staff] know how to communicate with [person], I know [person’s] alright here.” One person said, “The staff are understanding, they know the signs, when I’m not well.”

Staff knew about people’s individual needs most of the time. Staff said it was often difficult to have time to familiarise themselves with people’s care plans. One staff member said, “There isn’t time to read care plans, but I go and see the new person and introduce myself.” We didn’t find anything to suggest people had been negatively impacted however, this meant there was a risk of people receiving inappropriate care for their needs.

We observed permanent staff knew people well. Staff spoke to people about things that were important to them. One person was struggling to eat their lunch and at risk of eating too little. A particular member of staff came to support them as they had good relationship with the person and were more likely to eat with their support.

Records included person-centred and individualised information about how to care for people. The provider was transitioning from paper to electronic records. The nominated individual explained that the electronic records would support people’s care in the future by highlighting concerning trends in people’s health quicker, so they could be acted on.

People were supported to make choices, their independence was promoted and they were involved in decision making. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. A relative said, “[Person’s] got to know the staff. [Staff] do know how to communicate with [person]. I know [person’s] alright here, [staff] know (her needs) better than me.”

Staff promoted people’s independence and choice. The majority of staff we spoke to felt they did not have time to familiarise themselves with people’s care plans, which include people’s preferences.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Observations showed staff gave people choices, listened to their requests and acted on them. Prior to meals people were offered choices of food, these were ready to be served to them. One person didn’t want his pre-ordered lunch and staff spent time identifying something he would prefer to eat. People were encouraged join in activities or sit with others if they wanted to.

Systems and policies were in place to ensure people’s independence was promoted and their rights and choices respected. People's choices and preferences were included in care plans. Care plans and risk assessments were updated and amended regularly when people’s needs, wishes or preferences changed. Some people had expressed their views through residents meetings, while others were unsure if meetings were taking place.

People gave mixed feedback about how well staff responded to their immediate needs. People said that the high use of agency staff impacted their care, one person said, “Some agency staff don’t want to work.” Another person commented, “Sometimes they are a bit short of staff, they haven’t got time, we wait to be help now and again.” “I use the buzzer they can be somewhere else (in the building), sometimes I wait a while.”

Staff told us staffing levels were insufficient to enable them to respond to people's needs in a timely way. Staff said it depended on which unit people resided on, as to how quickly they received support.

During the on-site inspection people were supported in a timely manner. Staff told us there were more non-care staff helping with mealtimes and entertainment than usual during our visit. We observed people on the Wansbeck unit being left without a carer for a period of time. This was due to the planned distribution of staff across the service and meant people may not have had their immediate needs met during that time. Since the inspection the provider has introduced an additional staff member during the daytime to combat this issue.

Not all staff felt well supported by the management team. Care staff said that they raised issues with management but were not getting any outcomes from managers. Staff in other areas of the service felt well supported by managers. The management team told us changes had been made following feedback from some individual staff and provided us with examples.

The provider had systems in place to support staff however, these were not always effective. Staff supervision meeting records did not show that actions were taken, or explanations of why action couldn’t be taken, following issues raised by staff. Supervision records included comments like ‘everyone must be positive and not discuss any negativity or issues,’ which did not foster a culture of freedom to speak up. However, staff also reflected during their 1-to-1 supervisions that the management of the service had improved in recent months.