CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Belvoir Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely and environmental risks were checked, although seizure records did not always contain enough detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff had training and support, and people were helped with eating, drinking and healthcare. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act principles and had made relevant DoLS applications.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff understood people's communication, preferences and histories, and relatives were involved in care planning. On one occasion, giving medicine in the kitchen risked distraction and reduced privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and updated, and people were supported with activities, relationships, cultural needs and communication. Relatives had mixed views about how complaints had been handled, although one felt things were improving.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had made changes after identifying earlier management and recording problems, and had a clear improvement plan. Some record-keeping weaknesses had not been found by the provider's audits, and there was no CQC-registered manager at the inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Belvoir Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some records and privacy arrangements needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 7 June 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and managers, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable care plans, kind support, activities and good access to healthcare.
There were some shortfalls. Records did not always contain enough detail about seizures, skin care and malnutrition risks. Medicines were given in a busy kitchen on one occasion, which could affect privacy. The manager acted on these issues during or after the inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe. Medicines were documented, administered and disposed of properly, with staff training and competency checks.
“People received their prescribed medicines safely.” from the report
Good understanding of individual needs
Staff knew people's preferences, histories and ways of communicating. Care plans gave detailed guidance on how each person should be supported.
“Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's likes and dislikes, how they preferred to be supported, and their personal histories.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People and relatives helped plan and review care. Advocacy was used where needed to help people express their views.
“People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to enjoy activities and try new ones. The home also supported choice, control and independence in daily life.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed throughout the day and week.” from the report
Support with food and health
People were offered varied meals, snacks and drinks, with support for special diets and eating needs. Staff helped people access healthcare when required.
“People were supported and encouraged to have a varied diet that gave them sufficient to eat and drink.” from the report
Incomplete seizure records
needs fixingOne person's records did not consistently say what type of seizure had happened or how long it lasted. The manager took action after inspectors raised this.
“We noted form one person's care records that staff had not consistently recorded what type of epileptic seizure they had, or how long it was for.” from the report
Record-keeping and auditing
needs fixingRecords about skin integrity, seizure activity and malnutrition risks needed improvement. The provider's audits had not identified all of these gaps.
“However, we identified areas of record keeping that required improvement, and this had not been picked up in the provider's audits.” from the report
Privacy when giving medicines
needs fixingOn one occasion, medicine was given in the kitchen while people and staff were moving in and out. The manager said medicines would be moved to bedrooms to make this more private.
“This meant the person receiving their medicine was at risk of being distracted and having their dignity compromised.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no manager registered with CQC when inspectors visited. The manager had applied to become registered.
“The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01Have the gaps in seizure, skin integrity and malnutrition records now been corrected?
- 02How does the home check that its audits identify all important care-recording problems?
- 03Where are medicines now administered, and how is privacy protected?
- 04Has the manager completed registration with CQC?
- 05How are complaints recorded, investigated and followed up with families?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; people could not fully express their views, so inspectors also used observations, relatives' views and records. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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 Belvoir Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 April 2018.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.