CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Belong Macclesfield Care Village
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor checks, testing, protective equipment, cleanliness, social distancing and isolation arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Belong Macclesfield Care Village was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and safe visiting practices.
Inspectors visited on 14 February 2022. This was an announced, targeted inspection, with two hours' notice. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak response, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean and hygienic. Staff used protective equipment safely. There were systems for visitor testing, vaccination checks, regular COVID-19 testing, safe admissions and isolation.
People were supported to keep in contact with their families. Inspectors observed safe visiting arrangements. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating or rate the other four key questions.
Family contact
People were supported to keep regular contact with relatives through visits and other communication methods. Inspectors observed safe visiting practices.
“People were supported to maintain regular contact with family members through visits and other forms of communication.” from the report
Cleanliness and protective equipment
The home was visibly clean. Staff had infection prevention training and were seen using and disposing of protective equipment safely.
“Staff had received training in relation to infection prevention and control and were observed to be using and disposing of PPE safely.” from the report
Testing and isolation
The home supported regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff. It also used a tracker to show when people's isolation periods ended.
“Staff had developed a colour coded isolation tracker to provide easy overview of when people's isolation periods ended.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What arrangements are now in place to manage COVID-19 or other infection outbreaks?
- 02How do you currently support visits and contact with relatives when infection risks arise?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures, and what effect could they have on people's care?
- 04How are visitor testing and vaccination requirements recorded now?
- 05How do you record and monitor isolation periods for people who become unwell or test positive?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2022 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 2019
Rated Good, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found kind, personalised care and some records and staffing arrangements needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 10 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with 18 people living there, seven relatives and friends, 12 staff and three visiting professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, recruitment, complaints and other records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring improved from Good to Outstanding. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, good risk management and effective checks on quality and safety.
People and relatives were very positive about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, supporting independence and knowing people's preferences well. They found some recording issues about best-interest decisions and care details, but these were raised with the manager and some were corrected during the inspection.
Exceptionally caring staff
Inspectors found kindness, compassion and respect were central to daily care. People and relatives were extremely positive about staff.
“Kindness, caring, compassion and dignity were key values that ran throughout the day to day practice of the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's histories, preferences and support needs. People were matched to households and staff based on their interests and personalities where possible.
“People's life plans were person centred and contained details about the person, their history, preferences and how they wanted to be supported.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices and do what they could for themselves. People could take part in activities and use different facilities in the home.
“People felt that their independence was promoted, and they were treated at all times with dignity and respect.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Inspectors observed safe medicines practice and found clear risk plans. Medicines records showed people received medicines as prescribed, with audits followed up promptly.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) showed people were getting their medicines when they needed them and at the times they were prescribed.” from the report
Staffing in one household
needs fixingSome people gave negative comments about staffing in one household. The manager was reviewing this because people's needs had changed, and staffing patterns were being adjusted.
“We received some negative comments around staffing in one particular household.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingSome records about best-interest decisions were too general rather than specific to the decision, particularly for bed rails. The manager reviewed everyone during the inspection and said this was resolved.
“Documentation to support best interest decisions was sometimes generic rather than decision specific, particularly in relation to the use of bed rails.” from the report
Detail in some care records
minorA couple of records did not contain enough specific information about people's care. This was raised with the manager for action.
“We did see on a couple of records where more specific detail was needed in relation to someone's care.” from the report
- 01How do you check and adjust staffing levels in each household when people's needs change?
- 02How do you record best-interest decisions for restrictions such as bed rails?
- 03How will you make sure care records contain specific information about each person's care?
- 04How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about changing needs?
- 05How can relatives access the electronic care records, and what information will they be able to see?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 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.
Every inspection of Belong Macclesfield Care Village
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Belong Macclesfield Care Village →
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Belong Macclesfield Care Village →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire East
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 £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during 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.