Belmont 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.

People and their relatives said they were involved in helping to plan care, for example 1 relative said, “We are very involved in [my relative’s] care plans. We regularly have updates. My [relative] will get doctor visits if necessary. She is a fussy eater, and we do help with nutrition. The staff appear on the ball with care.” Care plans contained a wide range of information, including information about people’s life when they were younger and what their hobbies and skills were.

Theproviderdid not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

We found some staff had limited understanding about people’s nutritional needs. Daily notes and our observations of meals highlighted that food care plans were not always adhered to. The manager arranged for refresher training to improve staff knowledge and skills following our feedback. The provider used different national tools to assess people’s needs, for example regarding risk of malnutrition and weight loss, and risks to the health of their skin.

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.

There was effective information sharing between the staff team, and also wider health services. People felt there was good communication between them, staff and the manager, and said referrals were made quickly for example to the GP if needs be. Relatives said the manager kept them up to date regarding important information or any changes in people’s health and wellbeing.

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 were supported to participate in activities both within the home and outdoors and the provider employed activities co-ordinators to facilitate this. We found the choice of activities was limited and some people said they would like to have more variety. There were dedicated areas within the home so that people could listen to music and dance; we found this was particularly important to 1 person to have the flexibility to do so at different times of the day. Food was prepared at the home, and feedback about meal choices was mixed. For example, 1 person said, “The food is very average. Some days it’s not bad but I feel the choice is poor and limited. It tends to be soup and sandwiches most evenings.” However other people said they enjoyed the food and had good portion sizes.

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 knew people well and could quickly identify whether people’s health and wellbeing changed or deteriorated. Records indicated that staff monitored people’s weight, food and fluid intake and could take action if they had concerns. The manager kept a record of when people experienced a fall and considered whether anything could be done to reduce the risk of people falling.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff completed Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) assessments and best interests’ decisions and understood the principle of consent. Staff talked to people about what they were doing throughout their caring tasks. We saw that people had signed consent forms around their care and treatment and could make decisions about how they wanted to be cared for. Staff completed training around MCA and there was a relevant policy in place.