CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bluebell Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected for infection control but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 safety measures and appropriate use of PPE.
This was a targeted inspection during a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors visited on 10 February 2022 and gave 24 hours' notice. They looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened, PPE was available and used correctly, and people and staff had regular COVID-19 testing. Cleaning of frequently touched areas was increased, and the infection control policy was up to date.
The home supported contact with relatives through video calls, telephone calls and window visits when non-essential visits were restricted. Essential carers and families of people receiving end-of-life care were allowed to visit in line with government guidance.
The service was inspected but not rated. This inspection did not assess the other areas of care, such as how effective, caring, responsive or well-led the home was.
Cleaning and infection control
The home increased cleaning of frequently touched areas, helping to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“Enhanced cleaning schedules included regular cleaning of touch areas such as handrails and door handles. This reduced the risk of cross infection.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff had training in infection control and PPE, and inspectors saw them using PPE appropriately.
“Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and the use of PPE. Staff were observed wearing PPE appropriately.” from the report
Contact with relatives
When non-essential visits were restricted, the home supported contact through video calls, telephone calls and window visits. Essential carers and end-of-life visits continued under guidance.
“People were supported to contact their relatives and friends through video calls, telephone calls and window visits.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing pressures affecting people's care and support now?
- 02How are visits from relatives and essential care givers managed now?
- 03How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 04What infection control training do staff receive, and how is their use of PPE checked?
- 05How are new admissions assessed and protected from infection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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, June 2018
Bluebell Park was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some minor records and night staffing issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, recruitment files, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found caring staff, enough staff during the visit, good support with health and meals, suitable activities and strong management oversight.
There were a few minor shortfalls. Some people and relatives felt there could be more staff at night. Inspectors also found a few care and medicines records that needed updating, but the issues were addressed or referred for review.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen giving warm, personal care. People and relatives said staff were compassionate, patient and respectful.
“All the interactions we saw between staff and people were warm and personalised.” from the report
Good staffing during the visit
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs during the inspection. Call bells were answered promptly and staffing levels had increased since the previous inspection.
“During our inspection visit there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and records confirmed the usual number of staff were on duty that day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences, including how they wanted personal care and mobility support to be provided.
“This meant care was provided in the way people wanted it.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
People could see health professionals when needed. Staff supported different diets and followed professional advice about nutrition and swallowing risks.
“Records showed staff worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, community nurses, dieticians, opticians, dentists and chiropodists, to ensure people's medical needs were met.” from the report
Responsive management
The home listened to feedback and used it to make changes. Complaints were investigated and action was taken where needed.
“This showed that complainants were listened to and people's concerns acted upon.” from the report
Night staffing
needs fixingA few people and relatives thought there should be more staff at night, especially around the evening changeover. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“A few people and relatives said they thought there should be more staff at night.” from the report
Medicines record
minorInspectors found a few minor medicines recording issues. One person did not have the required instructions for as-needed pain relief, but this was put in place during the inspection.
“We found a few minor issues with medicines records, for example one person did not have a protocol in place for their PRN ('as required') pain relief medicines.” from the report
Mental capacity assessment
needs fixingOne assessment did not fully describe the complexity of a person's understanding. The deputy manager agreed to review it and make sure staff had the right information.
“One person's mental capacity assessment did not fully reflect the complexity of their understanding of their current situation.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingOne person's cultural and spiritual needs were understood by staff but were not written in the care plan. The manager agreed that the plan would be reviewed and rewritten.
“However the person's care plan didn't include any information about these needs and how they were to be met.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty overnight, especially around the evening changeover?
- 02What changes were made after people and relatives raised concerns about night staffing?
- 03How do you check that medicines records, including instructions for as-needed medicines, are complete?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments reviewed when a person's understanding or decision-making is complex?
- 05How do you make sure cultural, spiritual and personal preferences are recorded in care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 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 Bluebell Park
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 2011.
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.