CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Melbourn Springs Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were handled safely, staff were recruited safely and infection prevention measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, caring and respectful. People were involved in decisions, and their privacy, dignity and independence were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had choices, communication support, activities, visiting arrangements and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits, meetings and action plans were used to monitor the service. However, there was no CQC-registered manager at the inspection, and an interim manager was leading the home.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Melbourn Springs Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with an interim manager still in place.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. It was unannounced and took place on 13 October 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living there, a relative and staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were handled safely and infection prevention arrangements were effective. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help to access health services.
People and relatives described kind care. Staff knew people's preferences, supported their choices and respected privacy and dignity. Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. Activities, visiting arrangements and complaints systems were also found to meet people's needs.
The home did not have a manager registered with the CQC at the time. It was being run by an experienced interim manager while a new manager was being recruited. The report says this was the first inspection, so there was no earlier rating to compare.
Safe medicines and infection control
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. They were also assured that infection prevention arrangements covered visitors, equipment, testing, PPE and visits.
“Staff received, stored, administered and disposed of medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and encourage people to remain independent.
“We saw numerous friendly and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. People and relatives were involved in reviewing their care.
“People had care plans in place, which were personalised and detailed.” from the report
Good support and oversight
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. The home used audits, clinical meetings and action plans to monitor care and learn from incidents.
“The manager and senior staff held a monthly "clinical meeting" which reviewed incidents, and any learning from these incidents.” from the report
Food, activities and relationships
People were offered meal choices and support with eating and drinking. Inspectors also saw enjoyable activities and found that visitors were welcomed.
“The mealtime experience was a very pleasant and relaxed experience for people.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with the CQC when inspectors visited. An experienced interim manager was running the home while the provider recruited a new manager.
“The service did not currently have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
DoLS applications under review
minorThe manager said they were reviewing all existing DoLS applications. Families should ask what the review found and whether any further action was needed.
“The manager told us they were in the process of reviewing all the DoLS applications currently in place.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on recruiting and registering the permanent manager?
- 02Who is responsible for the home while the interim manager remains in post?
- 03What was the outcome of the review of all DoLS applications?
- 04How will staffing numbers change as the home moves above its inspection-time occupancy of below half its intended capacity?
- 05How are people's care plans and monthly reviews kept up to date when their needs change?
This was the first inspection since registration and covered all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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, April 2021
Targeted COVID-19 infection control inspection; inspectors were assured about safety measures, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors visited on 7 April 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control in the home, rather than all areas of care.
Inspectors found arrangements for visiting, testing, personal protective equipment and new admissions. People could have visits in rooms, in an indoor visiting area or in the garden. Staff also helped people keep in touch with family by video calls.
The home had infection control leads, staff training and checks on handwashing and protective equipment. Inspectors said they were assured about the infection control arrangements. The service was inspected but not rated.
Controlled visiting
Visitors had several ways to see relatives, including room visits by appointment, screened indoor visits and socially distanced garden visits. Visitors were checked and tested before entering.
“A nominated visitor could visit their family member/friend in their room by appointment.” from the report
Infection control training and checks
The home had two infection control leads. Staff had relevant training, and checks were made on handwashing and the use of protective equipment.
“There were two infection control leads within the home. Staff had infection prevention and control training.” from the report
Safe admissions
People newly admitted from the community or hospital stayed in their rooms for 14 days. Extra staff could be used where someone could not understand the need to isolate.
“People isolated in their rooms for 14 days, when recently admitted into the home from the community or hospital.” from the report
Clean and well-organised areas
Inspectors saw uncluttered communal areas, open windows for ventilation and a secure, organised clinical waste area.
“Communal areas seen appeared uncluttered to aid with effective cleaning.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 7 April 2021?
- 02What visiting arrangements are currently available, including visits in residents' rooms, indoor visits and garden visits?
- 03How do you test visitors and staff, and what protective equipment is currently required?
- 04How do you manage new admissions who need to isolate, especially when they cannot understand why isolation is needed?
- 05How would you keep families informed if there were an infection outbreak?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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.
Every inspection of Melbourn Springs Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 April 2020.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 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.