The Belmont

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not consistently check or discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, which affected the effectiveness of care and treatment. They did not always capture all relevant information during the assessment, and parts of the assessment form were incomplete. This meant, they did not always identify people’s needs, wishes, and preferences before admission. Staff regularly reviewed care records, however, they did not always keep them accurate or up to date. Where risks to people had been identified, staff did not consistently create care plans to guide staff in managing those risks. For example, 1 person was at risk of constipation, but they did not have a corresponding care plan. Some people lacked care plans for specific health conditions. Despite our findings, some people and their relatives reported being involved in the care planning process. One person shared, “They [staff] gathered information about me before I moved here”.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff used nationally recognised tools, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for nutrition and Waterlow assessment for the risk of developing pressure ulcers, to assess and manage people’s risks. Care records showed the service worked in conjunction with external health care professionals, to ensure people received the care they required in line with their needs. For example, where people had swallowing difficulties, staff involved the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) team, and recommendations were detailed in care records. Catering staff were regularly updated regarding people’s dietary needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The registered manager told us they had developed good working relationships with health partners. They held weekly clinics to ensure people’s health care needs were reviewed the GP visited monthly. Systems and processes were in place to share information with internal and external health and social care professionals. Staff supported people to access a range of services, for example, dentist, opticians, and nurses. They recorded in people’s care records the outcomes of any health professional visits.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had access to the health when they needed it. Regular visits were made to see people from a variety of health professionals. Staff also provided a range of activities to support people to keep fit such.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment; however, care records were not always effectively reviewed to ensure care and treatment was appropriate. For example, where people required monitoring for weight loss food charts were completed, however, specific quantities offered and consumed were not recorded. This meant staff could not determine if the person was losing weight due to not enough food being eaten or if there was an underlying medical condition.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People gave consent verbally and in writing. Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, their relatives or lasting power of attorney had been consulted regarding decisions in relation to care and treatment, so these were made in people’s best interest. Care plans included people’s ability to consent and make decisions.