CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Belmont House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, well-managed risks and safe medicines practice. They were also assured about infection prevention and control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and used to plan care. Staff received training and supervision, and worked with healthcare professionals to support people's health.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions, and their privacy, dignity and independence were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences and routines. People could choose activities, maintain relationships and visit friends and relatives without unnecessary restrictions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found good oversight, regular checks and a positive culture. Feedback from people and staff was used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Belmont House Nursing Home was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 September 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood people's needs, responded promptly to requests, supported healthcare needs and provided activities, visits and social opportunities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 1 March 2018. The inspection also checked infection prevention and control arrangements.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered promptly and recruitment checks were completed.
“There were enough staff to support people. The registered manager reviewed staffing levels at regular intervals to make sure there were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind and patient. People were not rushed and were supported with dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff were kind and patient when supporting people. People were not rushed or hurried and could take as long as they wanted doing activities, talking to others and when moving around the home.” from the report
Personalised choices
Care records included people's routines, likes and dislikes. People could choose when to get up, go to bed, eat and receive support.
“People had choice and control about how they wanted to receive care and support from staff.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities, community visits and social events. Staff also supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends.
“People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities and events that were planned and delivered in line with their choices and preferences.” from the report
Good healthcare links
Staff worked with GPs and other healthcare professionals, and acted on their advice. People's health needs were reviewed regularly.
“The service worked proactively with tissue viability nurses, speech and language therapists and dieticians, as well as the local authority care home support team, when required.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific nursing and healthcare needs, and how would you involve their GP and other healthcare professionals?
- 02How do you record and follow my relative's preferences, routines and choices about daily care?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, including activities outside the home and opportunities to maintain friendships?
- 04How would you support my relative's dietary needs and monitor whether they are eating and drinking enough?
- 05How would you involve us in decisions about capacity, best interests and any end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
Inspectors visited on 31 December 2020. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control because the home had been identified as a designated care setting for people discharged from hospital with COVID-19.
The home had 36 people living there, with capacity for up to 60. Inspectors found arrangements for safe visits, regular testing, isolation, zoning, use of protective equipment, cleaning and handwashing. They said the home met good infection prevention and control guidelines.
This was not a full inspection of the home. The overall service and Safe question were recorded as inspected but not rated. The report therefore does not give a quality rating for the home.
Safe family visits
The home had dedicated visiting rooms with screening and a process including testing, health checks and protective equipment.
“A robust protocol was in place to support safe visiting including temperature and blood oxygen checks and the provision of personal protection equipment (PPE).” from the report
Regular testing
People living in the home and staff were included in regular COVID-19 testing, with rapid testing also available for visitors.
“People living in the home were routinely tested for COVID-19 every four weeks and staff were currently being tested once weekly.” from the report
Infection control checks
Staff from care, food and housekeeping teams checked and audited practices such as protective equipment, handwashing and cleanliness.
“Designated staff members across the care, food and housekeeping teams oversaw and audited practice around areas such as the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), handwashing and cleanliness.” from the report
Separate COVID-19 area
A five-bed unit was self-contained and physically separated from the other units, with single rooms and private facilities planned for admissions.
“The five bedded unit identified for use by the Local Authority as a designated care setting was located on the top floor, self-contained and physically separated from the other units.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are the visiting rooms, screening arrangements and visitor testing process still being used?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested now?
- 03How are isolation and zoning managed if someone has an infection?
- 04How do you check that staff are using protective equipment, washing their hands and keeping areas clean?
- 05Is the separate designated care setting still in use, and how is it kept apart from other areas?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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 Belmont House Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 July 2016.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sutton
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.