Belvedere House Care Home

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Assessments of people's needs had been carried prior to people using the service and involved the person and, where appropriate, their relatives and healthcare professionals, to ensure the service was able meet the person's needs and preferences. Care plans and risk assessments clearly identified people's needs and risks. They showed the action staff should take to minimise any risk of avoidable harm. For example, one person required equipment to support their mobility, their care plan contained clear information which was individual to them and provided staff with clear guidance on how to safely support the person.

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. We found care plans in place detailed important information which linked with current good practice on how to support people with their health conditions. This provided staff with information about the condition and the indicators they needed to be aware of which could be a sign of a person’s health deteriorating. We reviewed people’s care plans and interventions staff had made, these interventions evidenced staff had followed people’s care plan and sought medical advice for people when required. Care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and updated and relatives confirmed they were kept informed of any changes.

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 provider ensured systems were in place to ensure people’s long term health conditions and medicines were regularly reviewed by external professionals. Staff spoke positively about how they worked together to meet people's needs. One staff member told us, “We are a very caring staff team, we work together well.” Another staff member told us, “Communication is really good, the unit manager always brings me up to speed when I come in, staff are really helpful too, if I am not sure of something, there is always someone to ask.”

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 spoke positively about the activities on offer; we found people were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests such as gardening and knitting. The registered manager had worked collaboratively with people to ensure the menus met people’s dietary requirements and preferences. We found the kitchen staff to be knowledgeable on people’s specific dietary needs. We observed staff to promote a positive mealtime experience, people received assistance when they needed this. We also observed when a person requested a meal that was not on the menu, staff promptly arranged this.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff used national recognised tools to monitor people's health, and we saw evidence of prompt action had been taken when a change was identified. Staff told us how the providers electronic system supported them in the day-to-day monitoring people’s health and wellbeing. The service had received many cards from people’s family members which recognised the care and kindness staff had shown in supporting people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The service had made appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications and monitored the progress of the applications. People had mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place when relevant. However, the documentation we reviewed did not consistently demonstrate how individuals were involved in these processes or how information was communicated to support their understanding and participation. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us of the steps they would take to improve this. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had received training on this. People confirmed staff supported their decisions and relatives spoke positively about this. One relative told us, “[Person] likes to have a bath very early in the morning, this is [person’s] choice as they like to be up and about early. Staff always oblige.”