CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Balmaclellan
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, infection control and medicines management were generally effective, but records for the outcome of some PRN medicines were not fully completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and training to support people's needs. People were involved in decisions, had their eating and drinking needs met, and were supported to access healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treat people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care was tailored to people's needs, but plans did not include enough information about personal goals, aspirations and achievements. Activities, community involvement and people's choices were not always recorded in a person-centred way.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had supportive leadership, current policies and audits with action plans. People, relatives and staff were given opportunities to share their views, although some engagement activities had been paused during the pandemic.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Balmaclellan was rated Good overall, but inspectors found improvements were needed in person-centred plans and meaningful activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 and 15 September 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, the manager and support staff. They reviewed care records, audits and other records, then spoke by telephone with relatives, an advocate and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and leadership. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported by staff with suitable skills. Medicines were generally managed safely, although records about the results of some 'as and when required' medicines were incomplete.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being responsive. Support was tailored to people's needs, but plans did not always include personal goals, aspirations or achievements. Records about activities, community involvement and choices for people who did not join activities were also not always person-centred.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service. Overall, the rating means the home was meeting the relevant standards in most areas, but the responsive service needed improvement.
People felt safe
Relatives said they felt their family members were safe. Risk assessments were personalised and regularly reviewed, and staffing was increased when people's needs changed.
“Personalised risk assessments were in place and were regularly reviewed.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. The home also worked well with healthcare professionals to support people's health and wellbeing.
“The service worked in partnership with external professionals, such as, speech and language therapists, Occupational therapists and GPs to support and maintain people's long-term health and well-being.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed a relaxed, homely atmosphere. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity, relationships and independence.
“We observed staff treat people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Supportive leadership
The manager used audits and action plans to identify improvements. Staff and relatives described the management team as supportive and approachable.
“The manager was open with the inspector during the inspection and took on board suggestions for improvements.” from the report
PRN medicine records
needs fixingRecords did not always show the outcome when 'as and when required' medicines were given. Inspectors recommended that the home update its recording practice.
“When 'as and when required' (PRN) medicines were administered related records were not fully completed regarding the outcome.” from the report
Personal goals were missing
needs fixingSupport plans covered people's care needs but did not include personal goals, aspirations or achievements. Inspectors recommended improvements to person-centred planning.
“However, people didn't have any person-centred plans to include personal goals, aspirations or achievements.” from the report
Activities and community involvement
needs fixingPlans did not always cover involvement in the local community. Choices offered to people who did not take part in activities were not always recorded in a person-centred way.
“For people who chose not to take part in activities, choices offered were not always recorded or in a person-centred way and were at times task orientated.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the outcome when my relative is given an 'as and when required' medicine?
- 02How will you identify, record and review my relative's personal goals, aspirations and achievements?
- 03What meaningful activities and opportunities to go into the local community are available for my relative?
- 04How do you record and review the choices of people who do not want to take part in activities?
- 05How can relatives contribute to reviews, house meetings and feedback about the service?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 October 2021 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 Balmaclellan
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 February 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.