CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Belmont Villa Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were described as robust, and risk assessments and medicines systems were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff had training relevant to their roles and people's needs. People received support with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives said staff were caring and involved them in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care reflected people's individual wishes, communication needs and interests. People had access to activities, time with others, trips out and support to keep in touch with family.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and approachable management style. Quality checks, staff support and feedback systems were in place, and the service used incidents and learning to improve.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, personalised care and effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed risk assessments, safe medicines systems and staff who understood people's needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care was personalised, activities reflected people's interests, and the home worked with health professionals. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was also Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had time to talk with people and respond to call bells promptly.
“There were enough staff to look after people safely and take time to sit for a chat or go for a walk.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff took time to talk with people and understood their preferences.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and care by staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's likes, dislikes and preferred ways of receiving care. Activities and communication were adapted to individual needs.
“The care plans gave so much personalised information, such as people's preferred way to receive care and support” from the report
Good management
Inspectors found the manager open and positive about learning. Audits, meetings and other checks were used to monitor care and plan improvements.
“There were effective quality assurance systems to monitor care and plan for on-going improvements.” from the report
Some people were unclear about care plans
minorAlthough care plans were personalised, some people did not understand what a care plan was. The home was also transferring care plans to an electronic system at the time of the inspection.
“Some people could tell us about their care plans and how they had been involved, others were unclear about what a care plan was.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative understands and helps review their care plan?
- 02How will the move to electronic care plans affect access to information about my relative's care?
- 03What activities and outings would be available for my relative, including one-to-one support if they do not want to join group activities?
- 04How would you support my relative's specific eating, swallowing, pressure-area or other health needs?
- 05How would you keep my relative in contact with family members who do not live locally?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the Good ratings from the previous inspection were maintained. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 2019 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but asked for clearer guidance on as-needed medicines and better mealtime support.
This was an unannounced inspection of the home. Inspectors visited on 20 and 24 October 2016, spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, audits and meeting notes.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found trained staff, flexible visiting, personalised care, suitable activities and access to health professionals.
There were two areas to improve. The home did not have written protocols for some as-needed medicines. During lunch, some people waited for help and the use of bowls was not recorded in care plans. The manager agreed to review these matters.
The previous inspection in November 2014 had found problems with quality checks and decisions for people who lacked capacity. Inspectors found these shortfalls had been addressed by this inspection.
Safe staffing
People and staff said staffing levels were suitable. Inspectors saw staff respond to call bells promptly, and the manager adjusted staffing when people's needs changed.
“This meant the staffing arrangements were flexible and at a level to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate patiently and respectfully. People were supported with their privacy, dignity, choices and relationships.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a respectful and patient way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences and routines. People and relatives were involved in reviews, and activities were adapted to people's abilities and interests.
“Care plans reflected this approach with specific information about people's preferences and routines.” from the report
Improved quality checks
The home had introduced audits covering areas such as care planning, medicines, health and safety and infection control. Inspectors found that identified improvements had been acted on.
“This meant there had been improvements in the quality assurance arrangements and the provider had addressed the previously identified shortfall.” from the report
As-needed medicines
needs fixingThere were no written protocols explaining when some as-needed medicines should be given. Inspectors recommended that the home seek advice so their use would be consistent, especially for people unable to explain pain or distress.
“There was no evidence they were being used incorrectly however, there were no protocols in place.” from the report
Support at mealtimes
needs fixingSome people waited before receiving help to start their meal. Inspectors also found that some people were eating from bowls without this being recorded in their care plans, and asked the manager to review the mealtime arrangements.
“Staff were available to support people however, this was not always in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What written guidance do staff now use when giving as-needed medicines, and how is this checked?
- 02How do you make sure people receive prompt help during meals?
- 03Are individual mealtime needs, including the use of bowls or different food textures, recorded in each person's care plan?
- 04How are decisions made and recorded when a person lacks capacity to consent to care?
- 05What quality audits are carried out now, and how are families told about improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and covered all five CQC questions; the report says the previous inspection took place in November 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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 Villa Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 January 2011.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.