CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Belmar Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines as prescribed, risks were assessed and reviewed, and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Infection prevention arrangements and emergency plans were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff supported people's nutrition, healthcare and decision-making needs. Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act principles, although inspectors recommended continuing improvements to parts of the building.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff supported privacy, independence and involvement in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people's communication, activities, relationships and recovery goals were supported. Some care plans still contained older information that could confuse staff.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and inclusive culture, clear responsibilities and systems for monitoring quality. The provider had improved its governance and record keeping since the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some premises and care-plan improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 22 June and 5 July 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff and health professionals, observed care, checked the home, reviewed care and medicines records, and examined management systems.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, people received support with food and healthcare, and staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement. It was no longer in breach of regulations. Inspectors recommended continuing the refurbishment plan, and noted that some care plans still contained older information that could be confusing.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff whose competence had been checked. Instructions were available for medicines given when needed.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had been trained” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff were compassionate and respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People were treated with respect, compassion and kindness, by staff who promoted equality and valued diversity.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff assessed people's needs and preferences, reviewed care plans and supported people with recovery goals and activities.
“People received care and support which was personalised to them.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Leaders used audits and feedback to identify improvements, and staff understood their roles.
“The registered manager used a variety of method to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Premises still need refurbishment
needs fixingSome areas of the home still needed refurbishment. Inspectors recommended that the provider continued its refurbishment plan.
“However, there were still some areas of the home that would benefit from refurbishment.” from the report
Older information in care plans
needs fixingSome care plans contained old information alongside current information. This could make it harder for staff to know which instructions to follow.
“When care plans had been reviewed, older information had not been removed.” from the report
- 01Which areas of the home still need refurbishment, and what is the timetable for completing the work?
- 02How do you check that old information is removed from care plans after reviews?
- 03How will you make sure staff follow the most up-to-date care instructions?
- 04How are residents involved in decisions about menus, activities and their individual care?
- 05How do you check that people's medicines, including medicines given when needed, are administered safely?
This was a follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe, after the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 2022 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 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found safer care and better management, but medicines records and social distancing controls still needed attention.
This was a focused inspection on 13 October 2020. One inspector and a member of the medicines team spoke with people and staff, observed care and medicines being given, and checked care, medicines, safety and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, recruitment checks were carried out, and infection control had improved. People said they felt safe and spoke positively about staff.
There were still problems with recording nutritional supplements, updating some instructions for medicines given when needed, and meeting shielding and social distancing rules. The overall rating remains Requires Improvement, as do Safe and Well-led.
The inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive. Their previous ratings were carried forward, and the report says earlier breaches in those areas remain under review.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had training and systems to identify, report and respond to abuse.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. The home carried out checks to make sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
“The service was staffed sufficiently to ensure people's needs could be met safely.” from the report
Improved care records
Care records and risk assessments were more accurate and regularly updated. A new care-planning system gave managers better oversight.
“Records related to people's care and treatment were accurate and reflective of their current circumstances.” from the report
Better organisation
Staff said management was more approachable and the home was better organised. Managers used audits and checks to identify and address shortfalls.
“Improvements had been made in relation to leadership and organisation of the service.” from the report
Infection control improvements
The home had introduced cleaning schedules and audits, used protective equipment safely and followed national guidance to reduce COVID-19 risks.
“The manager had implemented cleaning schedules and audits in relation to infection control, which helped to identify and address risks.” from the report
Incomplete supplement records
needs fixingStaff did not record when prescribed nutritional supplements were given. This meant the home could not check or audit their use.
“Carers administering the supplements did not make a record of their use which meant this could not be audited.” from the report
Medicine instructions needed updating
needs fixingSome written instructions for medicines given when needed did not match the current labels. They needed to be reviewed and corrected.
“In some instances, 'when required' medicines written protocols did not match the current label instructions and needed to be reviewed and updated.” from the report
Social distancing controls
seriousInspectors were not assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being met.
“We were not assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Registered manager record
minorThe registered manager had resigned but had not yet been removed from the registration. A regional manager was running the home.
“However, the manager had resigned since our last inspection and has not yet de-registered.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check every prescribed nutritional supplement?
- 02How are instructions for medicines given when needed checked against the medicine labels?
- 03What changes have you made to ensure shielding and social distancing rules are followed?
- 04What is the current position on the registered manager, since the previous manager had resigned?
- 05What progress has been made on the earlier breaches in Effective, Caring and Responsive?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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 The Belmar Nursing Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 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.