CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Nelson Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, following shielding and social distancing rules, and managing possible 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, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found robust infection control, good cleanliness and creative ways to keep families in touch during lockdown.
Inspectors visited on 18 August 2020 as part of a national review of infection control in care homes. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control.
They found staff were trained to use protective equipment and were wearing it correctly. The home had good cleanliness, extra housekeeping staff and more frequent cleaning.
The home was also taking steps to reduce risks, including assessing people's needs and using a traffic light system to alert staff to higher risks. Staff created ways for people to stay in contact with relatives when visits were stopped by local lockdown rules.
The service was inspected but not rated. The safe question was also inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
Staff had completed training on using protective equipment. They were organised, wore suitable equipment and the home had plentiful supplies.
“The home had plentiful supplies of the items required.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found good cleanliness in the areas they saw. The home had increased cleaning and bought specialist equipment to sanitise surfaces and rooms.
“The home was hygienic and had a good standard of cleanliness in all areas seen.” from the report
Family contact
Although visits from relatives were stopped by local lockdown restrictions, staff found creative ways for people to stay in touch with family and friends.
“the registered manager and the staff team had developed creative ways to enable people to stay in contact with their friends and family members.” from the report
Risk monitoring
Risks had been assessed and preventative measures were in place. A traffic light system helped staff identify people at higher risk.
“A traffic light system displayed on people's bedroom doors, alerted staff to people at high risk.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control procedures are in place now, and when were they last reviewed?
- 02How do you make sure staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 03How often are bedrooms and shared areas cleaned, and what specialist cleaning equipment is used?
- 04How do you support visits and contact with relatives now that the lockdown restrictions described in the report may no longer apply?
- 05How are people at higher risk identified and how are their preventative measures recorded?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the wider areas of care were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 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, October 2018
Nelson Manor Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with a few records needing improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced comprehensive inspection over 4 and 5 September 2018. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, toured the home and checked care files, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines management, personalised care plans, kind staff, activities, access to healthcare and systems for handling complaints.
The home had improved from an overall Requires Improvement rating at the previous comprehensive inspection in May 2017. The earlier concern was medicines management. A focused inspection in September 2017 found improvements, and this inspection found those improvements had been sustained.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels could be increased at short notice when people's circumstances changed.
“There was sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people warmly and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.” from the report
Activities and interests
The home had two activity co-ordinators and offered varied activities across seven days. People had been asked about their preferred activities.
“The provider employed two activity co-ordinators to provide varied activities over seven days.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home used regular audits, feedback and action plans to monitor care and make improvements.
“The registered manager had developed a series of robust systems and processes to enable the service to learn and innovate.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingInspectors found medicines were managed safely overall, but asked for better recording of thickened drinks and fridge temperatures. They also reviewed a missed medicine and received an action plan afterwards.
“We discussed areas that could be improved including the recording of thickened drinks and fridge temperatures.” from the report
Mental capacity paperwork
needs fixingOne person's records contained conflicting information about their ability to make decisions and the assessment was incomplete. The paperwork was reviewed and completed during the inspection.
“One person's file contained conflicting information about their capacity to make decisions and their mental capacity assessment documentation was not fully completed.” from the report
Room cleanliness
minorConcerns were raised after the inspection about the cleanliness of one person's room. The home took immediate action to resolve the issue.
“Following the inspection, concerns were raised about the cleanliness of one person's room, the registered manager took immediate action to resolve the issues.” from the report
Care plan signatures
minorThe home intended to strengthen its records so people signed review forms to show their involvement in care planning.
“The registered manager explained she intended to strengthen these systems to ensure people signed review forms to indicate their involvement and participation.” from the report
- 01How do you now check and record thickened drinks and medicine fridge temperatures?
- 02How do you investigate and prevent missed medicines?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions checked for accuracy?
- 04How will you involve my relative in reviewing and signing their care plan?
- 05Which activities and healthcare support would be available for my relative's particular needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 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 Nelson Manor Care Home
7 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.