CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Belong Morris Feinmann
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including safe visiting, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Belong Morris Feinmann is rated Good overall; inspectors found good infection control and safe arrangements for visitors and new admissions.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. Inspectors checked how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections. They did not carry out a full inspection of all areas of care.
The home was clean and had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. Staff and domestic workers were allocated to particular households to reduce movement around the building. Visitors had to take a lateral flow test and used a visitors pod with a screen.
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, PPE, testing, social distancing, shielding, admissions and the home's plans for preventing or managing outbreaks. The overall rating shown in the report is Good, but Safe was inspected and not rated during this visit.
Household staffing
Staff were allocated to particular households, which reduced movement around the home and helped limit infection risks.
“Staff were allocated to a particular household to reduce movement around the home.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was very clean and had increased cleaning of frequently touched areas such as door handles.
“The home was very clean, with domestic staff also allocated to individual households.” from the report
Visitor controls
Visitors had to take a lateral flow test before visiting and used a screened visitors pod.
“Visitors had to have a lateral flow COVID-19 test prior to their visit.” from the report
Support with isolation
The home supported people to isolate after moving in or returning from hospital, with extra staff and cleaning where needed.
“People were supported to self isolate when they moved to the home or returned from hospital.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently tested and kept separate from residents?
- 02How do you support a new resident or someone returning from hospital if they need to self-isolate?
- 03How are PPE use, staff testing and infection control training checked now?
- 04How do you manage activities that involve people from different households?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the other care areas were not assessed and Safe was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but people were unhappy with the food and one behaviour support plan lacked detail.
This was the first inspection since the service registered with CQC in June 2016. It took place on 12 and 13 June 2018, with the first day unannounced. Inspectors looked at both the care village and the home care service.
Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were given as prescribed and there were enough staff to meet assessed needs. Staff were trained and supported, knew people well, and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans covered people's needs, preferences, faith and end-of-life wishes.
The main weaknesses were the quality and choice of food in the care village, and missing detail in one plan about supporting a person who could become agitated. The management team had recognised these issues and said an external Jewish catering company had been engaged to improve the food.
Safe medicines and staffing
The care village used electronic medicines records and audits. Inspectors found enough staff for people's assessed needs, and home care calls were reported to be punctual with no missed calls.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed calm, reassuring interactions and staff supporting privacy, dignity and independence.
“The staff are respectful, kind and non-intrusive. They exercise discretion very sensibly.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, likes, dislikes, communication and faith. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing plans.
“The care plans contained comprehensive details of people's assessed support needs and provided guidance for staff in how to meet these needs.” from the report
Activities and exercise
The care village offered activities such as gardening, arts and crafts, trips, talks and bridge. People also had access to tailored exercise sessions and a gym.
“A full programme of activities was organised at the care village by the experience co-ordinators.” from the report
Management oversight
The managers were visible and approachable. The service used audits, clinical meetings, surveys and feedback from residents and relatives to identify and address issues.
“This meant the respective registered managers had oversight of their services through a robust quality auditing system.” from the report
Food did not meet preferences
needs fixingMost people in the care village were unhappy with the food and wanted more culturally appropriate dishes. An external Jewish catering company was engaged after the inspection to improve the quality and range.
“Most people we spoke with said the food was not very good and they did not have enough culturally appropriate dishes.” from the report
One behaviour plan lacked detail
needs fixingTwo care plans gave clear guidance for supporting people who could become agitated. A third did not fully explain what staff should do, although staff could describe how they would keep the person safe.
“The third plan did not specify how the staff should support the person when they became agitated.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the food since the external Jewish catering company was engaged?
- 02How will you make sure meals offer enough culturally appropriate choices for my relative?
- 03How are behaviour support plans checked and updated when someone may become agitated?
- 04How will my relative's faith, level of religious observance and food preferences be recorded and followed?
- 05How will you involve me and my relative in reviewing the care plan?
This inspection covered both the care village and the home care service and assessed all five CQC questions; it was the first inspection since registration in June 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2018 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 Morris Feinmann
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Good
- June 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 June 2017.
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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.