CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Belper Views Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicine systems and appropriate infection control improvements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and understood people's needs. People received support with healthcare, nutrition, consent and mobility.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems had improved, but leadership was inconsistent. Communication with people and relatives was not always effective, and audits did not always identify areas for improvement reliably.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good and no longer in Special Measures; inspectors found safe, effective care, but the home still needed to improve its leadership and communication.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 20 and 21 July 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed communal areas and checked care records, medicines records and management records.
The home had made significant improvements since its previous inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safer risk assessments, better training, safe medicines practice and appropriate support with health needs, food and consent.
The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Good. Safe and Effective were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because communication with people and relatives was not always effective, and quality checks did not always identify improvements reliably.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw call bells and requests for help answered quickly. Staffing levels had improved and were reviewed against people's needs.
“There was enough staff. During our inspection we observed call bells and requests for support to be answered quickly.” from the report
Better risk management
People's risks were assessed and reviewed, with clear guidance for staff. The report also found improvements in catheter care and pressure sore prevention.
“People's risks were appropriately assessed, reviewed and staff had enough guidance to support people safely.” from the report
Staff training
Staff were up to date with mandatory training and received training for people's specific needs. They also received regular supervision.
“We reviewed the training matrix and found staff were up to date with mandatory training, such as safeguarding and infection control.” from the report
Health support
The home made timely referrals and followed professional advice. Staff supported people with health choices, including physiotherapy and mobility exercises.
“They now recognise and respond to health needs and changes in a timely way. And they follow instructions.” from the report
Communication with families
needs fixingSome relatives felt communication needed to improve. Not everyone felt able to raise concerns informally or felt listened to.
“We received some feedback from relatives that improvements were needed to ensure high-quality person-centred care was prioritised.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits had improved, but they did not always identify areas needing improvement reliably. The home needed to make sure its systems continued to work consistently.
“Further improvements were required to ensure areas for improvement were reliably identified.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The manager said they planned to apply to become registered.
“At the time of the inspection the service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
Medicines policy
minorThe medicines policy needed minor changes so that it matched the home's actual practice. Medicines were otherwise found to be managed safely, although two room temperature records were above the recommended level during a heatwave.
“We found the medicines policy needed some minor changes to ensure it was reflective of the practice at the service.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now applied to become registered, and what is the current position?
- 02How will you make sure people and relatives can raise concerns and feel listened to?
- 03What checks are now used to find problems reliably, and how do you track that actions have been completed?
- 04What changes have been made to the medicines policy, including how medicine storage temperatures are monitored during hot weather?
- 05How will you make sure the improvements found at this inspection are sustained over time?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection for the questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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, May 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found unsafe staffing, weak risk management and poor oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 September and 05 October 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and a relative, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training information and management records. They focused on Safe, Effective and Well-led.
Inspectors found too few staff for people's needs. Some risks were not properly assessed or managed, safeguarding referrals were missed, infection control was not always effective, and staff did not always have the training or supervision they needed. The home also lacked reliable checks to identify problems and make sure they were fixed.
People received their medicines safely, had enough food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals. However, the overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The home was placed in special measures, with the CQC saying it would usually re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvement.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely and people received them as prescribed.
“Staff managed medicines safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Food and drink
People received regular meals, snacks and drinks. Two people told inspectors they enjoyed the food.
“People received three meals a day, plus snacks and drinks throughout the day.” from the report
Health professionals
The home worked with health and social care professionals, and their recommendations were followed.
“The provider had positive working relationships with health and social care professionals.” from the report
Accessible bathrooms
Some bathrooms had been refurbished and were accessible for people with physical disabilities.
“The bathrooms within the home had been recently refurbished to a high standard and were accessible for people with physical disabilities.” from the report
Risks not managed
seriousSome people did not have specific risk assessments or care guidance. Inspectors also found poor catheter care and insufficient action after accidents.
“The provider had failed to ensure that people were protected from the risk of harm.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousTwo incidents that needed referral to the local authority had not been referred. Staff understanding of safeguarding was also not reliable.
“We identified two incidents which required a safeguarding referral to the local authority that had not been made” from the report
Training and supervision
needs fixingSome staff lacked up-to-date safeguarding training and training to support people whose behaviour could challenge. Regular supervision and competency checks had not been completed.
“Staff had not received regular supervisions or ongoing support to review their practice.” from the report
Poor management checks
seriousImportant audits were missing, out of date or not followed by action. Accident and incident information was not analysed to prevent problems happening again.
“Quality assurance systems were either not in place or not implemented consistently.” from the report
Consent records
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always recorded. DoLS paperwork was not kept in people's care files, so the home could not show that conditions were being followed.
“The provider had failed to act in accordance with the requirements of the MCA.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now on each shift, and how do you calculate whether this is enough for residents' current needs?
- 02Which individual risk assessments have been completed or updated since the inspection, including for catheter care, falls and behaviours that challenge?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns identified, recorded and referred to the local authority?
- 04What training, supervision and competency checks have staff completed since the inspection?
- 05Can you show the latest audit results and the action plans proving that problems with medicines, care plans and infection control have been fixed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led following whistle-blower concerns; Caring and Responsive were not rated and the report does not give ratings for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 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.
Every inspection of Belper Views Residential Home
9 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Belper Views Residential Home →
- May 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Belper Views Residential Home →
- January 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.