CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely overall, but some recent records, including topical medicine records, were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on their assessed needs and had support with food, drink and healthcare. Some mental capacity and best-interests decisions were not consistently recorded in line with guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence, choices and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and based on people's preferences and life histories. People were supported with activities, communication, relationships, complaints and access to the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, approachable management and systems for feedback and improvement. However, audits had not identified all the recording and notification issues around mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe support, with some medicines and legal-record keeping that needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection. Inspectors visited on 11 and 18 January 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives described the home as homely and caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good access to health professionals, person-centred care and a positive culture.
There were some gaps in medicines records, including records for creams. Some mental capacity and best-interests decisions were not fully recorded, and some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards notifications were not sent to CQC promptly. The manager started reviews and submitted the required notifications during the inspection.
This was the first inspection since the service was registered in October 2021. Under the previous provider, the last rating was Outstanding, published in November 2019.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors found that staff promoted dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were well treated and everyone we spoke with described staff as very kind and caring.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors observed staff responding quickly. People and relatives said staff were available when help was needed.
“There were enough staff in the home to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and life histories. Staff knew people well and supported their choices.
“The service delivered person-centred care with people having choice and control regarding how staff met their needs.” from the report
Good partnerships
The home involved health professionals promptly and acted on their advice. Professionals gave positive feedback about this work.
“Staff are proactive, they put things through early in the day so we can respond” from the report
Positive culture
People, relatives, staff and professionals described management as approachable and supportive. People were involved in developing the service.
“There was a positive culture in the home that supported good outcomes for people.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome recent medicine records had gaps, including records for creams applied to the skin. Management said medicines had been given and issued guidance to reduce the chance of this happening again.
“There were some gaps in recent medicines records and in recording for topical medicines, such as creams applied to the skin.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome decisions about capacity and best interests were not fully recorded. The manager began a review, and the report recommended better oversight of these records and notifications.
“However, these decisions were not consistently recorded in-line with guidance.” from the report
Late legal notifications
needs fixingCQC was not always notified promptly when Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had been granted. The required notifications were submitted during the inspection.
“CQC had not always been notified in a timely way when the home had been granted authorisation to deprive people of their liberty.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every medicine, including creams, is signed for correctly?
- 02Can you show how mental capacity and best-interests decisions are now recorded in full?
- 03How do you make sure Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations are notified to CQC on time?
- 04What checks now identify gaps in medicines, capacity and legal notification records?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing whether these changes have worked?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2023 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 Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home →
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 October 2021.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.