Belvedere House

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.This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We found care plans contained personalised information about people which included their life history, interests and people who were important to them. Staff demonstrated how they knew people well, we observed staff to be engaging with people and spending time listening to people reminisce about their past. People were supported to pursue their interests and hobbies such as gardening, knitting and jigsaws. We also found staff were supportive of people who wished to be involved in the day to day running of their home by working with people who enjoyed doing household tasks. People told us there was a lot of activities happening in the service. One person told us, “There is lots to do here, I like to get outside in the garden, they [staff] are always happy to help me.”

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. Staff worked with external professionals to ensure people’s health and wellbeing needs were met. We found prompt action had been taken when people’s needs had changed, appropriate referrals had been made to ensure people had access to services that could provide further support to them. The service had established links within the local community and regular events took place in the service such as visiting zoo, choirs, comedians and a ventriloquist. People and their relatives spoke positively about the activities on offer. One relative told us, “[Person] loves the activities, especially the daily exercises and other activities with the staff and residents.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were provided with an information pack when they started to use the service, this included useful information about facilities, menus activities and how to make a complaint. The service also sent out regular newsletters to people which provided people with dates of upcoming events and activities and information on new staff and training that had been undertaken. Alternative formats of information were available if people required this. People’s care plans detailed their communication needs and the support they required, this information was regularly reviewed and updated. We also found signage in place to orientate and inform people around the building, along with aids to prompt people who were experiencing difficulties with their memory.

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. People, staff and relatives had several opportunities to share feedback about the service. We found regular resident, staff and relative meetings took place. We reviewed the minutes from these meetings and found when suggestions had been made, they had been actioned. Relatives told us they felt involved with their family member’s care. One relative told us, “We do regular reviews, we have revised care plans a couple of months ago.” Another relative told us they were unable to attend the relative’s meeting’s however they confirmed they always received a copy of the minutes.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found the service to be accessible to all, the first floor had outdoor balcony space. People told us how they enjoyed pursuing their interest in gardening and showed us the plants they had grown. Arrangements were also in place to enable people to access to services if they were unable to use these in the local community, these included a visiting podiatrist and hairdresser. Staff understood their responsibilities to people received an equitable service and had received training in equality, diversity and human rights.

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. Staff understood and respected people’s individual needs and choices. One relative told us, “[Person] was a committed Christian, she can talk about it with the staff, and they accommodate religious visitors too.” Another relative shared with us, their family member preferred not to participate in group activities. This preference was respected, and the activities coordinator arranged one-to-one sessions instead.

People were 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 provider ensured people’s future wishes were recorded in their care plans. Staff had completed end of life and palliative care training. The management team told us how they worked with external professionals to ensure staff had access to specialist advice and support to ensure people’s needs were met when they were receiving end of life care.