CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Bellingham Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff and safe medicines arrangements. Staff understood safeguarding and emergency procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care needs were assessed and reviewed, staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Inspectors found consent and best-interest processes were understood.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions and their privacy, dignity, communication needs and personal choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities reflected people's interests. People could raise complaints, and end of life wishes were recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management arrangements, positive feedback and effective audits. The manager had introduced a quality and compliance role and regular staff meetings after inspection feedback.
What inspectors found, May 2019
The Bellingham Residential Care Home was rated Good in all five areas, with kind care, suitable staffing and effective management.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 4 April 2019. One inspector checked the building, call bell response, daily care, records, medicines, staffing and management systems. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional.
Inspectors found people were safe and received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained, recruitment checks were completed, and there were enough staff on duty. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and their care plans reflected their needs and choices.
The home supported activities, meals, healthcare and end of life wishes. It had a complaints process, although no complaints had been received since the previous inspection. The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. The previous inspection, published in December 2016, was also Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff were on duty and recruitment checks were completed before staff worked alone.
“The registered manager followed safe staff recruitment procedures and ensured enough staff were on duty at all times.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people at their own pace and were observed treating them with dignity and respect.
“We observed staff were kind, caring and patient with people throughout the inspection visit.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives were involved in care planning, and activities were based on people's interests and preferences.
“Staff took a person-centred approach to plan and support people's needs.” from the report
Medicines and healthcare
Staff responsible for medicines had training and competency checks. People received medicines on time and were supported to access healthcare.
“People told us they were consulted about their medicines and they received them on time.” from the report
Management oversight
The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor care and identify improvements.
“The provider had systems to ensure the quality of service was regularly assessed and monitored.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and support my relative's needs before they move in, and how often would their care plan be reviewed?
- 02What staffing levels are normally in place, and how quickly would staff respond if my relative used the call bell?
- 03How would you support my relative's medicines, including checking their wishes and recording administration?
- 04What activities and community visits could be arranged around my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative's healthcare needs and end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the building, care and management, and gave ratings for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements completed since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 1 December 2016. They spoke with people living there, a visitor, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff training, recruitment, meals, complaints and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors saw kind, patient staff who respected people's privacy and dignity.
The previous inspection in October 2015 found legal breaches involving unsafe care, staffing, management and reporting hospital treatment to the CQC. At this inspection, inspectors found the provider had completed the promised improvements. They found suitable staffing, safe medicines, updated care plans, trained staff and effective checks on quality.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff providing care with patience, kindness and compassion. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff.
“We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they were kind and patient and showed affection towards the people in their care.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Staffing levels and the mix of skills were suitable for people's needs. Checks had been completed before two new staff started work.
“During this inspection we found staffing levels were suitable with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's support needs, wishes and preferences. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“The care plans had been developed where possible with each person identifying what support they required and how they would like this to be provided.” from the report
Improvements completed
The provider had acted on the legal breaches found at the previous inspection. Inspectors found the required actions had been completed.
“During our inspection visit on 01 December 2016 we found these actions had been completed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently make sure there are enough staff with the right skills when people's needs change?
- 02How are personal emergency evacuation plans kept up to date for each person?
- 03How do you check that care plans still reflect each person's wishes, health needs and daily routines?
- 04What arrangements are currently in place for people who may lack capacity, including any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 05How are medicines audits and incident reporting checked by the manager?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; inspectors reviewed selected records and observed care during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2016 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 The Bellingham Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Bellingham Residential Care Home →
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Bellingham Residential Care Home →
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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
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.