You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

This inspection was undertaken on 1 and 2 March 2017.

Belmont Lodge provides accommodation and personal care to up to 46 people. People living in the service may have care needs associated with dementia. There were 36 people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we found significant improvements had been achieved across most areas of the service. However, additional work was needed to some records and evaluation arrangements to ensure ongoing progress.

There were processes in place to manage risks in the service. Staff practice and use of equipment for people was notably safer. Medicines were safely managed to ensure people received their prescribed medicines. People were supported by staff who knew them well and were available in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs effectively. Recruitment procedures were more comprehensive. Staff knew about identifying abuse and how to report it to promote people’s safety and well-being. Action had been taken as needed to ensure people were safeguarded.

Staff were more confident and had received additional training and support needed to enable them to improve their practice. One exception to this had already been identified and action was being implemented to address this. People’s dining experience was notably enhanced. People had choices of food and drinks that supported their nutritional or health care needs and their personal preferences. Arrangements were in place to support people to gain access to health professionals and services.

People overall were cared for by kind and caring staff. People’s dignity and privacy were respected and this was another area of staff practice much improved since our last inspection. Visitors were welcomed and relationships were supported.

People had opportunity to participate in their care planning and to have input into the way their care was provided. People were supported to participate in social activities of their choice. People felt able to raise any complaints and felt that the provider would listen to them. Information to help them to make a complaint was readily available.

Staff morale was higher and staff worked as a team to provide care in a friendly and calm environment. The provider had used their staff performance systems to effect positive changes in staff culture and responsibility.

Systems were in place to offer people ways of expressing their views and influencing their everyday experience of the service. The provider had listened to people’s views and ensured that actions were taken in response to people’s comments.

There was clearer leadership and accountability in the service. The registered manager, with the support of the provider, had worked to stabilise the service and implement positive changes.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was safe.

The provider had systems in place to manage safeguarding concerns and to manage risk for the safety of people living in and working in the service.

Staff recruitment processes were thorough to check that staff were suitable people to work in the service and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely.

People’s medicines were safely managed overall.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who were well supported and had the knowledge and skills required to meet their needs.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were being met.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to help them maintain a healthy diet that they enjoyed. People were supported to access appropriate services for their on-going healthcare needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was caring.

The interaction between staff and people living in the service was positive overall. Staff were able to show that they knew the people they cared for well.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received. People’s privacy and dignity was respected as were their relationships with their relatives and friends.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

Records relating to people’s care needed improvement. People were provided with care by staff who understood people’s care needs and responded appropriately. People had activities they enjoyed and met their needs.

People were confident that they could raise any concerns with the staff and that they would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was well led.

Improvements were noted to safety, quality and management of the service overall and procedures were in place to support ongoing progress.

People who used the service and staff found the registered manager approachable and available. Staff felt well supported.

Opportunities were available for people to give feedback, express their views and be listened to.