Belle Vue Country House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and mostly respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.Apart from our observations in relation to a person being overly encouraged to eat their meal, we saw staff spoke with and treated people kindly and with respect. People and their relatives told us staff were caring, some comments included, “They do treat [person] with dignity and respect, the other day, whilst I was there, [person] had an accident, staff took them off quietly and changed them, they always make sure [person] is clean and tidy.”

Staff gave examples of how they ensured people’s dignity was respected, a staff member told us about a person and said, “We keep dignity during personal care, we shut the doors, ask them all their choices, [person] doesn’t like to be shaved in the early morning so we adjust and learn from their pattern. For showers we cover [person] nicely (with towels) and start with the wash, before entering the room we knock on the doors. Common sense and simple things value them. Things like this happen as a routine. All these gestures become part of our routine.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals to made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. We observed activity sessions that took place in the ground floor lounge on each day of our inspection, the first day people lacked engagement and did not participate. On the second day people were more involved, we saw the staff member adjusted their approach depending on who they were speaking with. There was little stimulation and engagement in the second floor lounge during both days of our visit.

People and their relatives told us there was not much to do at the service and they were sometimes bored. Comments included, “At one time there were 2 activity ladies but they have not had one for a while. Definitely not enough for people to do. I see people just sitting about with nothing to do.” And, “There is not a lot going on for people, even if they want to sit and watch.” A staff member said, “We had requested at our staff meeting we need an activity coordinator. Everyone has different likes and they enjoy different things. We are hoping for the activity worker as some residents can really express themselves.” The provider had responded to feedback and an activity worker was due to join the service imminently. Religious services were held so people were able to practice their faith as they wished.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Despite our observations of the person who was being overly encouraged to eat their meal, we saw people were frequently offered choices and where possible their independence was promoted. Staff gave examples of how they promoted people’s autonomy, a staff member said, “We help residents stay independent,let them choose clothes, eat by themselves, walk with support, or help with little tasks.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. During a busy period, we observed a person coughing for approximately 30 minutes, staff periodically asked the person if they were okay, however, did not offer a drink or other ways to help soothe the cough. We saw a person did not eat their main meal, staff did not go to them to ask why, when their dessert was served the person asked if the dessert was free of charge. A staff member encouraged them to eat the dessert, however, did not consider the person was worried about paying for their food which may have been the cause of them not eating their main meal. We fed this back to the manager who told us a review of people’s mealtime experience would be a priority.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff were well valued by the provider and manager. A staff member of the month initiative was in place to encourage staff to provide a good level of care to people. Staff told us they were happy working at the service and felt appreciated, many staff had worked at the service for a number of years. The provider was keen to encourage staff to develop including promotions and champion roles. Some staff comments included, “I feel I am of course valued, if not I wouldn’t be there for [number] years, they treat all staff really well.” And, “I am really happy to work there, the team is very good, all are supportive and easy to work with, from our managers side they are very supportive, any help they have a welcomed approach. I am valued.”