CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Melbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing was sufficient, recruitment was safe and infection control measures were effective. Medicines were managed safely, although protocols for when-required medicines needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report, so no new rating or detailed finding was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report, so no new rating or detailed finding was given. People and relatives were nevertheless described as complimentary about the care and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report, so no new rating or detailed finding was given.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Systems did not always support person-centred care, choice or involvement in everyday decisions. Care records needed more detail, although quality checks, staff communication and partnership working were mostly effective.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Melbury House: Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement because choice and person-centred systems were not consistent.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Safe remained Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good infection control, safe medicines systems and effective action to manage risks. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and supportive.
Well-led changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. People were not always offered choices or involved in everyday decisions. Care records were not always detailed or person-centred, guidance for some medicines was incomplete, and bedroom doors were locked when people were not inside.
The overall rating remained Good because the inspection did not cover all five key questions. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly and safely. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff started.
“There were sufficient staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and supportive care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff were described as kind, caring and supportive.
“People and relatives were complimentary about the care provided by staff.” from the report
Good infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements to prevent and manage infections. There were no restrictions on visiting at the time.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Limited choice and involvement
needs fixingPeople were not always consulted about drinks, meals or daily activities. Accessible menus and substantial alternative meals were not always available.
“Systems did not always promote a person-centred culture including to enable people to be offered choice and supported to be involved in making decisions about their everyday living requirements, whatever the level of need.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
needs fixingSome care records did not clearly explain how staff should provide support in the way each person wanted or needed.
“Records were in place, but improvements were needed to ensure they were more person-centred.” from the report
Bedroom access
needs fixingBedroom doors were locked when not in use. Inspectors recommended reviewing this so people could get to their rooms easily.
“Bedroom doors were locked during the day, when not in use.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. The new manager was applying to register with CQC.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made so people are offered choices about meals, drinks and activities?
- 02How do you record each person's preferences, interests and life history, and how do staff use this information?
- 03What protocols are now in place for giving when-required medicines, including medicines used when someone is distressed or agitated?
- 04Can residents access their bedrooms whenever they want, and how are any risks from unlocked doors assessed?
- 05Has the new manager now registered with CQC, and who is responsible for oversight while registration is completed?
This was a focused inspection with detailed findings for Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 2023 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, August 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
The inspection took place on 22 July 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection because the home had a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control practices.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, and admitted people safely. They also found enhanced cleaning, infection control checks and staff training.
Visiting had been reduced in line with national and local guidance. The home helped people keep in touch with relatives by telephone and social media, and supported their emotional and social wellbeing.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Infection prevention
The home had systems to prevent infections spreading. This included enhanced cleaning, social distancing and checks on infection control practice.
“Systems were in place to manage and prevent people, staff, and visitors from spreading infections.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff had training in PPE and hand hygiene. Managers observed staff to check that infection control procedures were followed correctly.
“Staff had undertaken training in putting on and taking off PPE, hand hygiene and other Covid-19 related training.” from the report
Support during restrictions
The home supported people's emotional and social wellbeing while routines and visiting arrangements were affected by the outbreak.
“Activities had been planned within the home to positively support people through this period of change to their routines.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home followed national guidance for people moving in from the community or hospital and explained isolation procedures where needed.
“The home was following national guidance for anyone moving into the home from the community or hospital.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how would these change if there were another outbreak?
- 02How are people supported to keep in contact with relatives if visits are reduced?
- 03How often are infection prevention and control audits and checks carried out now?
- 04How do you make sure new residents are admitted safely and understand any isolation procedures?
- 05What training and checks do staff currently complete on PPE and hand hygiene?
This was a targeted, announced inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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 Melbury House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 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.