Balmoral Court

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

The service was responsive. Whilst staff members we spoke with were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they were supporting, care plans could be improved to replicate this knowledge. We saw one person's plan stated they were on a texture modified diet but there was no detail about this. When we asked a staff member they were able to tell us exactly the right texture of food and level of thickener for fluids. The service worked in conjunction with other health professionals to ensure people's needs were being met and care was appropriately co-ordinated with everyone involved. There was a clear procedure in place to deal with complaints and it was evident that complaints were responded to, and records maintained of actions and outcomes. People were supported in sharing feedback about the running of the service.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People we spoke with said they felt involved in their care and treatment. One person said, "I am kept up to date and feel involved." They also went on to tell us if they didn’t like what was planned they would say so. We received mixed feedback from relatives about whether they were involved in their relation's care but everyone we spoke with knew and felt comfortable to raise concerns with the management team. One relative told us, It's been a long time since there's been any kind of review of her care plan and in fact I can't remember when the last time was that it was discussed." One relative told us, "If I had any issues I would go to one of the senior carers and if there was not much response then I would go to the manager. I have spoken to her mainly early on when it was more about discussions of how to manage my relative's behaviour and she was responsive to suggestions and discussion.”

Staff that we spoke to explained to us that people received person centered care. They understood the principles of what this meant. When discussing care planning, a nurse told us, "If they have relatives, we offer them to be involved, we try to involve the family as much as possible. Everyone is different and some people have learning disabilities, so we need to ensure we hear their voice."

People were given the opportunity to personalise and decorate their bedrooms however they wished, some people we spoke to chose to do this and others decided they didn’t want to make any changes.

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 told us they were supported to be involved in their care and their lives at the service. Some relatives we spoke to told us they had not been asked for feedback on the service provided. However, the manager did show us how relatives were supported to provide feedback via questionnaires.

Staff told us people were supported in sharing feedback on the running of the service. A staff member told us, "We have a committee meeting where we can ask people for feedback and improvement ideas and opinions. We have a snack trolley and one person asked for fruit as a healthier option which we introduced, and another had requested new books as they'd already read the ones we had in the lounge." Another staff member explained to us that if someone was not happy with their care, "I'd direct them to a member of management to discuss their complaint."

There was a clear procedure in place at deal with complaints and it was evident that complaints were responded to, and clear records maintained of actions and outcomes. We reviewed the evidence from surveys that had been completed in January 2024 this showed that surveys had been undertaken with visitors have in January 2024 with residents in March 2024 with staff in February 2024 and with relatives in January 2024 therefore surveys were taken on a rolling month by month basis. We saw that questionnaires were generally positive in feedback some areas in relation to activities what marked as neutral from relatives but there was no negative feedback from visitors relatives or residents in the surveys we viewed. Staff feedback was generally positive with some small areas of feedback regarding cleanliness and confidentiality mentioned in a negative way but these were far outweighed by positive feedback.

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.

The registered manager had an open door policy to help people to share their views. People we spoke with felt able to raise concerns and said they felt listened to.

We reviewed a number of complaints and safeguarding investigations off-site. These showed that the service had carried out full investigations had liaised with other agencies where relevant and provided the complainant with an outcome. Complaint records were checked via a log to ensure they met with the organisational time scales. Investigations were robust in terms of recording actions taken and also reflected where lessons were learned or when disciplinary actions or other measures were taken by the service.

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.