- Care home
Belle Vue Country House
Assessment report published 8 December 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Dates of Assessment: 06 October to 21 October 2025. Belle Vue Country House is a care home, providing accommodation, nursing and personal care to people living with varying stages of dementia and mental health conditions. The service can accommodate up to 41 people, at the time of our inspection 34 people were living at the service.
The manager of the service was new to their role. They were highly regarded amongst people, their relatives, staff and professionals. However, there were some gaps in the manager’s knowledge in respect of legislation and regulation. For example, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always being followed. Quality assurance systems did not always ensure shortfalls were identified in people’s care records, the environment, equipment and infection prevention and control practices.
Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people at risk of abuse. However, policies were not current for staff to refer to and escalate different types of abuse. We identified some shortfalls in the safe storage of medicines, although staff administered safely and in line with people’s preferences.
There was a lack of activities and engagement for people, the provider was aware of this and an activity worker was being recruited to improve people’s social stimulation. Although staff treated people with compassion and dignity, there was room for improvement regarding staff’s understanding of people’s right to decline. Staff were seen to be kind and caring to people and people’s requests were mostly being promptly attended to.
Staff were not always deployed effectively which meant there was not always enough staff to support people at busy times of the day. Staff were recruited safely and regularly supervised; they were given training opportunities to support them in their roles.
Health and social care professional involvement was sought when needed, staff monitored people following treatment plans and provided feedback to professionals if required. People could access advice from visiting professionals and were supported to attend health appointments.
People and their relatives were not given opportunities to provide formal feedback; however, they were able to speak to managers when needed.
People, their relatives, professionals and staff spoke highly of the provider and manager and said they had an open door policy and was available to speak with if there were any concerns.
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
At this inspection we identified 2 breaches of Regulation in relation to consent and the overall governance of the service.
People's experience of this service
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. A person told us, “I feel safe here, I feel safe when being supported to mobilise and when staff use the hoist.” A relative told us, “I feel that [person] is very safe. Staff have phoned me up if [person] has had the odd fall, that’s reassuring. There’s never been an issue with [person’s] safety because staff always do their best to keep them safe. Never for one moment I’ve thought should I move [person]."
People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about the staffing levels at the service. Comments included, “I would say not enough staff because [person’s] issues are very severe. I realise that 1 to 1 care is not possible.” And, “They never have less than 4 to 5 staff on the upper level. The staffing seems very good.”
People and their relatives told us they felt the service was kept clean and tidy. A relative said, “It is all very clean and tidy. It’s an old house so not easy to look after but I think they manage well. There are usually no nasty smells.” Another told us, “I feel that the cleaning is good. The room is done well and is clean and tidy., the lounge looks very clean. Any spills are cleaned up.”
People’s relatives spoke about the general care and support their loved one’s received. Their feedback included, “I would say [person] is well cared for. They are immaculately dressed, well looked after, washed and cleaned. If [person] spills down themselves and is wet, they are changed straight away. Careful treatment, that’s the most important thing after all.” And, “‘[Person] is clean, tidy and well looked after and their needs are physically met. One of the nurses here is very knowledgeable and gives me regular updates on [person].”
All people and relatives we spoke with referred to a lack of activities and social engagement, some comments included, “There is not a lot going on for people. If I sat staring at a wall it couldn’t be worse.” A person said, “I have mixed feelings about Belle Vue, there is a lack of activities and some social emptiness, but I generally like the staff and feel safe.”
People and their relatives all told us they found staff to be caring and compassionate. A relative said, “All the staff are very caring and I can approach them. They definitely know [person]. They know [person] likes to wear their favourite jumper.” Another told us, “'The staff look after [person] very well. [Person] can react to personal care but is always clean, well dressed. The staff are very friendly, hug [person] and stroke their hand, [person] is content. Staff know what they need from trying to read the body language.”
Relatives spoke of good communication from staff and management, especially in response to incidents or treatment. They said, “They keep me very well updated if [person’s] health changes, even the GP calls me. When [person] was taken into hospital I was phoned immediately”. And, “Again a couple of times with [person] they have noticed things out of the norm. When I arrive, they say they were worried and take time to discuss things. They are hot on calling the GP and hot on e-mails if there is a problem. The GP is active.”
People and their relatives provided positive feedback about the general running of the service, comments included, “When I go in, I go straight to the manager or the care staff and I can talk about [person’s] care and they explain things. I’ve not had any care reviews.” And, “Well managed because I feel that the staff and managers welcome visitors and are good at giving us time. We were informed about the change of manager in an e-mail. There is not a high turnover of staff and that’s important for people who have dementia, they see the same staff.”
While the people and relatives we spoke with mostly expressed they were generally happy with the service, our inspection found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.