CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Melbury Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines management and regular safety checks. Risks, safeguarding concerns and infection control were managed through established systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's food, drink, healthcare and training needs were met. The home used assessments, care plans and legal processes for consent and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and helpful. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, involving them in decisions and supporting independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People were offered individual and group activities, support with relationships and help to maintain religious beliefs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive atmosphere, supportive management and strong quality monitoring. People, relatives and staff were regularly asked for feedback.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some management follow-up still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, complaints and training records.
The home was clean, homely and safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, trained staff and good links with healthcare professionals. People and relatives said staff were kind, knew people well and responded to changing needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was also rated Good and published in September 2017.
Safe care
The home identified and managed individual and environmental risks. It also used information about incidents and falls to look for trends and improve care.
“Individual and environmental risks had been identified and managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed polite and compassionate interactions, with people treated with dignity.
“Staff were polite and courteous when interacting with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and choices. Staff responded to changes and involved people and relatives in care decisions.
“Care plans were personalised and developed around the person's needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered a wide range of activities and helped people maintain friendships, family links and religious beliefs.
“People were supported to participate in a range of activities.” from the report
Strong oversight
The management team used governance systems, feedback and clinical information to monitor quality and support improvement.
“The provider had a structured governance system which effectively monitored the service and supported improvement.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of inspection. The manager was completing an application, while the provider remained legally responsible for the service.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Staff supervision and appraisals
minorStaff received regular support, but the manager was still working to ensure supervisions and appraisals were completed in line with the provider's policy.
“The manager was currently working to ensure these were completed in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the manager's application to become registered with the CQC?
- 02How do you check that staff supervisions and appraisals are completed on time?
- 03How are changes in a resident's health, mobility, weight or medicines reflected in their care plan?
- 04What activities would be available for a resident with dementia or particular interests?
- 05How would you involve our family member and us in decisions about care, complaints and changing needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed the home and care provided across all five CQC questions; the previous Good ratings remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some reported delays answering call bells.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 and 27 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, family members, staff and visiting healthcare professionals. They looked at care records, staff files, medicines and management records, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines arrangements, clean surroundings, trained staff and person-centred care plans.
People and families were generally positive about the care. Activities reflected people's interests, complaints had been resolved, and managers used audits, meetings and surveys to check the quality of the home. The home was still rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection in February 2015.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs during the visit. Staffing levels were adjusted according to people's dependency and agency staff were described as a last resort.
“Our observations during the two days of our inspection visit were that call bells were answered promptly and there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to look after people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were polite, warm and respectful. They knew people's backgrounds, likes and dislikes, protected privacy and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“We saw staff knocking on bedroom doors and asking permission before entering people's rooms, and staff closed bedroom doors while carrying out personal care.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and included outings, music, games, visits from animals and events involving families and the local community.
“We found the provider protected people from social isolation.” from the report
Strong quality checks
Managers carried out regular audits, walkarounds, meetings and surveys. People, families and staff were asked for their views, and identified issues were followed up.
“This demonstrated that the provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.” from the report
Some reported waits for the buzzer
minorSome people said it could take a while for staff to answer the buzzer, including waits of ten or twenty minutes at busy times. Inspectors did not find evidence of these lengthy delays during the inspection.
“At times it takes a while for them to answer the buzzer” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells normally answered, especially at lunchtime and bedtime?
- 02Which mandatory training courses had gaps, and have all staff now completed them?
- 03What improvements are planned for the dementia unit, and when will they be made?
- 04How will you make sure activities continue to reflect my relative's interests and choices?
- 05How can families raise concerns, and how are complaints used to change practice?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 2017 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 Melbury Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.