CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bluebell Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitor screening, PPE, testing, cleaning, ventilation and safe admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 5 March 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and managed infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, staff used protective equipment properly, testing was available, and cleaning and ventilation were being managed. People were tested before admission and isolated for 14 days after arriving.
The home supported contact with family and friends in different ways. Risk assessments were in place for people who could not isolate easily, including people living with dementia.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened for respiratory infection symptoms and given PPE and hand-hygiene support.
“Essential visitors to the service were screened for symptoms of respiratory infections prior to being admitted into the home.” from the report
Staff PPE
Staff used appropriate PPE during personal care, and inspectors found that disposal followed current guidance.
“Staff wore appropriate PPE when delivering personal care to people and disposal of PPE followed current guidance.” from the report
Cleaning and ventilation
The home followed cleaning schedules and had good ventilation. Inspectors also found that its infection control policy was current.
“Cleaning schedules were followed to ensure the home was kept hygienic and safe.” from the report
Safe admissions
People were tested before admission and isolated for 14 days after arriving, with risk assessments in place.
“The service ensured people had been tested for COVID-19 prior to being admitted.” from the report
Family contact
The home supported alternative ways for people to stay in touch with family and friends and kept them informed.
“Alternative methods of contact between people and their family and friends was supported within the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened for infection symptoms, and what PPE and hand-hygiene arrangements are used?
- 02How are people who cannot isolate successfully, including people living with dementia, supported safely?
- 03What testing arrangements are now in place for residents, staff and people being admitted?
- 04Has the new entrance and separate room for visiting been completed, and how is it being used?
- 05How are families kept informed and supported to maintain contact with residents?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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, March 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, but the home’s leadership was rated Requires Improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered separately in July 2018. It was unannounced and took place on 22 and 23 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They reviewed care, medicines and recruitment records, and observed meals and care in communal areas.
The four care areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, kind interactions and care plans that generally reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, independence and end of life care.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the provider had not told CQC about applications to deprive people of their liberty or their outcomes. Inspectors were satisfied that the required applications had been made to the local authority and that nobody had been deprived of their liberty unlawfully. The report also records some care instructions and records that were not followed or completed consistently, although these were raised during the inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting people with patience, dignity and warmth.
“We saw staff being kind and friendly throughout the inspection.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely.
“We found peoples medication was administered, recorded and stored safely.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received regular training and supervision. Inspectors found they understood the people they supported and had relevant nursing skills.
“Staff were skilled and knowledgeable about the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories, communication needs and daily routines. The home offered activities and supported people's independence.
“People's likes, dislikes and what was important to them was recorded in their care plans.” from the report
Good health support
People were referred to health professionals when needed. Nursing records were maintained to a high standard and supported timely treatment.
“People had been supported to live healthier lives and had access to health professionals.” from the report
CQC notifications
needs fixingThe provider had not notified CQC about applications to deprive people of their liberty or the outcomes. Inspectors said nobody had been deprived of their liberty unlawfully, but this reduced the well-led rating.
“The provider had not notified CQC of applications for Deprivation of Liberty authorisations or the outcomes of these applications, as required by the regulations.” from the report
Swallowing support instructions
needs fixingTwo people's plans said they should use small teaspoons to make food easier to swallow, but this was not provided at one lunchtime. The issue was raised and corrected at the next meal.
“At lunchtime on the first day of the inspection, we saw this was not provided for them.” from the report
Oral care records
needs fixingTwo people’s plans said they needed staff help with oral care twice a day, but records did not show this consistently. The manager said the care had been given but not always recorded.
“Their personal care records did not indicate this was being done consistently, with records only confirming this was done once a day and sometimes not at all by staff.” from the report
- 01What system is now used to make sure all required CQC notifications are submitted on time?
- 02How do staff check that people with swallowing risks receive the correct cutlery at every meal?
- 03How do you check that planned oral care is provided twice a day and recorded accurately?
- 04How are changes in a person's preferences, such as wearing glasses or having personal grooming support, recorded and shared with staff?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise concerns directly with the manager, and how are responses monitored?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection of all five areas after the home registered separately in July 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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 Bluebell Court Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 July 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Salford
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. 90 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.