The Belmont

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Care plans were mostly detailed and person-centred. However, we found some people did not have care plans for specific health conditions, some contained inaccurate information, and some lacked details around people’s sexuality cultural and religious needs. Further work was needed to ensure records fully reflected people’s needs including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. During the assessment, we discussed these findings with the registered manager, who began reviewing and updating care plans while we were on site. Other care plans we reviewed provided good insight into people’s needs, preferences, and life histories. Where appropriate, leaders made reasonable adjustments. For example, 1 relative told us their family member had moved to a different floor that better met their needs. People and their relatives confirmed they were involved in decisions about their care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. They worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received the support they needed. Staff worked on the same unit to maintain consistency which meant they received continuity of care. People were supported to maintained community links they had developed before moving into the service. A health care professional told us they worked collaboratively with staff at the home to enable their health needs were met.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were provided with a service user guide on admission, outlining the available services and how to raise a complaint. Staff obtained consent before using people’s personal data and ensured individuals understood how their information would be handled. The registered manager told us they were able to provide information in a range of formats where there was a need for this. People’s communication needs were identified during their assessment and recorded on their care plans; this included any aids they used such as glasses and hearing aids.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Some people we spoke with told us they were involved in resident meetings and were kept up to date with changes in the service. We saw evidence of regular meetings taking place. The provider sent out regular surveys for people and their relatives to complete to gather feedback on the service. Policies and procedures were in place to manage and respond to complaints. People and relatives felt able to speak to the registered manager about any concerns and felt confident that matters raised would be addressed.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Managers and staff supported people to access health care services when they needed it, and this was evidenced in their care records. The local GP practice conducted weekly ward rounds, ensuring people received timely access to care, treatment, and support. The registered manager upheld people’s right to equal access to health and care services, regardless of their background. The building had been designed to ensure accessibility and appropriate signage was displayed throughout the service to support people to navigate their way around.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The provider had procedures in place regarding equality and diversity, and staff completed training to understand and reduce inequalities that affected outcomes for the people they supported. Cultures were celebrated and promoted to improve understanding and raise awareness amongst people living at the service and staff.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service was not supporting anyone at the end of their lives at the time of our assessment. Care plans in relation to end of life care were basic and did not always reflect people’s preferences. Some decisions were recorded about people’s wishes regarding receiving treatment if their health deteriorated. For example, some people had ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place.