CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Montpellier Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visiting, admissions, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Montpellier Manor: targeted inspection found strong infection control, but no overall rating was given.
Inspectors visited the home on 9 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good arrangements for safe visiting, admissions, social distancing, testing and vaccination. Staff had enough protective equipment, used it correctly and had received infection control training.
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of high-touch and visiting areas. People could keep in touch with loved ones and continue activities, including in shared areas and outdoors.
The home was marked “Inspected but not rated”. This inspection did not give an overall quality rating or rate the other four questions.
Safe visiting
The home had procedures to support safe visits and helped people stay in contact with loved ones through calls, video calls and a visiting pod.
“Procedures were in place to support visitors to access the service safely.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment, and staff were seen using it correctly. Staff had also completed infection prevention and control training.
“There was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) available throughout the service and staff were observed using it correctly.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and saw increased cleaning of areas that people often touch and areas used for visits.
“The home was clean throughout. Robust cleaning regimes were in place, which included increased cleaning of 'high touch' and visiting areas.” from the report
Learning during the pandemic
The home had reviewed its approach during the pandemic and used quality checks to maintain infection control.
“The service had been very proactive in learning throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are safe visiting arrangements, including face-to-face visits and the visiting pod, being managed now?
- 02How do you check that staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 03How often are high-touch areas and visiting areas cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 04How do you support people who cannot make their own decisions about testing and vaccination?
- 05What lessons from the pandemic are still being used, and how do your quality checks confirm that infection control remains effective?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some concerns about staffing feedback and record keeping.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 14 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records. This was the first CQC inspection since the home registered in April 2018.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, people's needs were assessed, and staff had suitable training. People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and respectful.
The home offered activities, personalised care and support with healthcare, food and end-of-life wishes. The building was clean, spacious and designed with people's needs in mind. Inspectors also found some gaps in employment-history records, supervision records that did not fully show two-way discussions, and incomplete detail in one person's falls records. The manager said these issues were being addressed after the inspection.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely and that there were no gaps in the medicine records they checked.
“There were no gaps in medicine records.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, explained what they were doing and gave people time to make choices. Inspectors saw warm and reassuring interactions.
“Staff provided support in a kind, patient manner.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered activities including music, arts and crafts, pet therapy, outings and one-to-one time for people who did not want to join group activities.
“People told us there were plenty of activities available to them within the home.” from the report
Dementia-friendly design
The building was clean and spacious. The area for people living with dementia used signs, themed spaces and equipment to help people find their way and stay engaged.
“This had been thoughtfully designed and furnished to meet people's needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and provider carried out checks on areas such as medicines, accidents, complaints, weights and pressure wounds. Actions stayed flagged until completed.
“Quality assurance systems were in place.” from the report
Staffing feedback
minorSome people and staff felt staffing levels could be improved, particularly on one floor. Inspectors found that staffing numbers met the home's dependency tool and saw people's call bells answered promptly.
“Some people and staff told us they thought that staffing levels could be improved.” from the report
Employment history records
needs fixingSome staff files did not contain complete employment histories. The manager sent evidence after the inspection that this was being addressed.
“We identified that there were gaps in records of some staff's employment history.” from the report
Staff supervision records
needs fixingSupervision records focused on tasks and did not always show a two-way discussion between staff and management. A new form was introduced after the inspection.
“We found that staff supervision records were task orientated and did not always reflect a two-way dialogue between staff and management.” from the report
Falls records
needs fixingRecords for one person at risk of falls did not contain enough detail. The manager addressed this after the inspection.
“We identified that the records relating to one person who was at risk of falls required further detail.” from the report
- 01How have you responded to the feedback that some people and staff felt staffing levels could be improved?
- 02Have all staff employment histories now been fully recorded and checked?
- 03How does staff supervision now provide a genuine two-way discussion about support and concerns?
- 04What changes were made to the falls records after inspectors found that one person's records lacked detail?
- 05How will you keep families informed about complaints, incidents and actions identified through quality checks?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with care, medicines, staffing, premises, records and management systems examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 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 Montpellier Manor
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 April 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.