CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ada Belfield Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always recorded safely or clearly, and lessons were not always put into practice after problems were found. People’s risks were reviewed, staffing levels were sufficient and infection prevention measures were in place, but some infection checks were not documented clearly.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, induction and supervision. People had detailed care plans, suitable equipment, support with eating and drinking, and appropriate contact with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw people’s privacy and dignity being protected, and people were involved in decisions about their care and daily choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and updated when people’s needs changed. People could take part in activities, keep in touch with relatives and have their communication, cultural and end of life wishes supported.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had systems to monitor quality and make improvements. People, relatives and staff said their views were listened to, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Ada Belfield Centre rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but Safe was Requires Improvement because medicines records were not always clear.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 8 December 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and quality records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and there were enough staff. Care was kind and respectful. People had personalised care plans, choices about daily life, activities, contact with relatives and support from health professionals.
The main weakness was medicines recording. Different codes were used on medication records, and staff did not always explain why medicines had not been given. Fire evacuation information was briefly incomplete, and infection control checks were not always recorded clearly. The overall rating was Good, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People said staff responded in a timely way.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of the people using the service safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with warmth and respect. Inspectors saw staff provide emotional support and protect privacy and dignity.
“We observed staff to take time to provide people with emotional support during our inspection and staff spoke about people warmly and respectfully.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people’s needs, choices and preferences. Staff knew people well and adapted care when needs changed.
“People had personalised care plans in place which included information about their personal needs, choices and preferences.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships. Relatives received regular updates about activities.
“A monthly newsletter was sent to relatives which included photos of their loved ones taking part in activities each month.” from the report
Responsive management
Managers used information about incidents and falls to make changes. Staff, people and relatives felt able to give feedback.
“We saw the registered manager used this information to make changes in the service to improve people's safety.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousTwo different medication record systems used different codes. Staff did not always explain why medicines were not given, and earlier audits had not led to effective improvement.
“The recording of medicines was not always safe.” from the report
Infection control records
needs fixingThe home said COVID-19 checks were completed regularly, but they were not always documented. This made it less clear what checks had been carried out.
“This meant it was not always clear what checks the registered manager had completed to ensure the service was adhering to COVID-19 government guidance.” from the report
Fire evacuation information
minorThree people’s personal emergency evacuation plans were not in the fire evacuation folder. This was corrected immediately during the inspection.
“Three people using the service did not have a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) in the fire evacuation folder.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure all medication records use the same codes?
- 02How do you now check and explain any medicine that is not given?
- 03How do you make sure medicine audit findings lead to completed improvements?
- 04How are infection prevention and COVID-19 checks recorded and reviewed?
- 05How do you check that each person’s fire evacuation plan is in the correct folder?
This was the first comprehensive inspection at the new premises; all five key questions were assessed and the previous premises had been rated Good in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements at the home.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 26 November 2020. This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control.
They found good arrangements for visitors, including symptom checks, personal protective equipment and social distancing. People could keep in touch with relatives using technology, and visiting arrangements were designed to reduce infection risk.
The home was clean and well maintained. Staff had infection control and protective equipment training, and managers carried out checks and audits. Inspectors were assured that testing, risk assessments and infection outbreak arrangements were in place.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide a full quality rating for the home.
Infection control
The home had arrangements to prevent and manage COVID-19 and other infections. Inspectors were assured that infection control guidance was being followed.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened for symptoms and had to follow protective equipment and social distancing guidance.
“There was a clear system for visitors in place to ensure they followed the current guidance on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing.” from the report
Clean surroundings
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained.
“The home was clean and well maintained throughout.” from the report
Staff checks and training
Staff received training in protective equipment and infection control. Managers checked practice and carried out regular audits.
“The management team also regularly audited their infection control practices to ensure staff were following them.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives through technology and made arrangements for safer visits.
“The provider had ensured that people were able to maintain contact with relatives using technology whilst visiting was restricted.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and when were they last reviewed?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, and what protective equipment or distancing measures are required?
- 03How do you train and check staff on infection control and the safe use of protective equipment?
- 04How often are people and staff tested when there is an infection risk or outbreak?
- 05What recent inspection or quality information can you provide for care, staffing, activities and management, which this inspection did not assess?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Ada Belfield Centre
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 June 2020.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.