CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Belmont View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, and inspectors found stable staffing, safe recruitment, infection control and organised medicines systems. Some risk assessments and medicines records needed more information, and the home acted immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, experienced and supported. People's health, dietary needs and access to professionals were managed well, although some eating and drinking records and best-interest records needed more detail.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions, and staff supported their privacy, dignity, independence and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's needs and preferences. The home offered activities every day, supported relationships and community involvement, and had arrangements for complaints and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a strong management team, open communication and embedded quality checks. This rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection, although the service remained consistently managed and well-led.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but some care and medicines records needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they were happy with the care. Inspectors saw a cheerful, homely atmosphere and found staff to be kind, skilled and respectful.
There were some gaps in records. These included risk assessments for diabetes and epilepsy, information about creams and some as-needed medicines, eating and drinking monitoring, and best-interest decisions. The home acted immediately to address these issues.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in October 2018. Well-led had previously been Outstanding but was rated Good at this inspection. The report did not identify any breaches of regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed laughter, singing and warm interactions between staff and people.
“We observed many positive, caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans generally described people's needs, preferences and independence. Staff adapted their support to each person.
“People received personalised care which reflected their needs and preferences.” from the report
Stable staff team
The home had a consistent staff team, with some staff having worked there for many years. Staff were trained and supported.
“People were cared for by a consistent and stable staff team.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had a full programme of activities, with support to maintain interests, friendships and links with the local community.
“Since the last inspection two activities coordinators had been employed so they now covered 365 days of the year.” from the report
Some risk assessments were missing
needs fixingSome records did not guide staff about health conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy. The director of care acted immediately to address this.
“However, some risk assessments were not in place to guide staff about people's health conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy.” from the report
Some medicines records needed more detail
needs fixingRecords about creams and the steps to take before giving some as-needed medicines needed improvement. The home acted immediately.
“Some records required further information.” from the report
Some nutrition records needed more information
needs fixingSome records did not contain enough information to monitor people's eating and drinking needs properly. The home acted immediately.
“However, we found some records required additional information to support the monitoring of people's eating and drinking needs.” from the report
Some best-interest decisions were not fully recorded
needs fixingFor people who could not make particular decisions, some care plans did not clearly show the decision, who was involved or why it was in the person's best interests.
“Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, some care plans did not always demonstrate best interest decisions had been made or who was involved in making decisions on people's behalf.” from the report
Well-led rating fell
minorThe well-led rating changed from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good. Inspectors still found the home well managed, but families may want to understand why the rating changed.
“At the last inspection this key question was rated as outstanding. At this inspection this key question is now good.” from the report
- 01What has been changed since the inspection to make sure diabetes and epilepsy risk assessments are complete and regularly reviewed?
- 02How do you check that records for creams and as-needed medicines contain all the information staff need?
- 03How do you monitor people's eating and drinking, especially where they need extra support or have specialist dietary needs?
- 04How are best-interest decisions recorded, and how are families or other people involved in those decisions?
- 05Why did the well-led rating fall from Outstanding to Good, and what improvements have been made since then?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Belmont View was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind, personalised care and Outstanding leadership.
The inspection was unannounced on 21 March 2017, with a second announced day on 22 March. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, handover sheets and staff recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were enough, and people received kind and respectful support. Care was personalised, activities were available and complaints were handled according to the home's policy.
The home was rated Outstanding for Well-led. Inspectors found strong leadership, useful links with community groups, regular quality checks and evidence that feedback was acted on. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in January 2015.
Safe medicines
The medicines records inspectors checked had no gaps. Medicines were stored securely and stocks were checked regularly.
“We reviewed five people's MARs and saw there were no gaps in recording.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and treating people with dignity.
“Throughout our visit we saw numerous examples of kind and caring support being delivered.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, likes and dislikes. Staff knew people's preferences and supported activities based on their interests.
“People and their relatives told us the service provided personalised care and support.” from the report
Strong leadership
The home had a positive culture, active community links and regular audits. Inspectors found that identified problems were acted on quickly.
“Feedback from people and their relatives was sought and acted on.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff had a range of training and received regular supervision and appraisals. Staff said these gave them opportunities to ask questions and request support.
“Staff were supported with regular supervisions and appraisals.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain how staff made best-interest decisions for people who lacked capacity. The manager said the recording process was being reviewed.
“Where people lacked capacity to make decisions we saw care plans did not always contain information on how staff make best interest decisions for them.” from the report
- 01How do you now record best-interest decisions for people who cannot make some decisions themselves?
- 02How will you make sure care plans continue to reflect changes in a person's needs and preferences?
- 03How are activities chosen for people living with dementia, and how do you record whether they enjoy them?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient when there is sickness or staff leave?
- 05How are medicines, care plans and other quality checks reviewed, and how quickly are problems corrected?
This was an inspection covering all five key questions, with the overall rating and the four Good ratings remaining unchanged from January 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 2017 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 View
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 2010.
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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.