Belmont Care Home

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 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 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.

The manager undertook a range of holistic assessments which were personalised and informative. People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. Staff participated in review meetings and the manager made sure staff were updated about any changes or concerns.

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.

The manager aimed to organise consistent rotas so that people were supported by familiar staff. Most staff members worked on the same unit (there were 4 in total) to allow for continuous care and support. People and relatives told us staff knew their jobs well, which meant staff had good knowledge about people’s individual conditions and how they preferred care to be provided. Staff told us they had sufficient time during inductions to read care plans and understand them. Staff commented that handovers were managed well and important information was recorded in handover records. Staff completed training with regards to specific groups such as people with dementia and learning disabilities.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Appropriate policies were in place around data protection, and information was stored securely. People’s communication needs were assessed prior to admission and continuously reviewed to make sure staff had the right information about how to care for people. Information could be adapted in a variety of ways, such as easy read documents, different sizes of print, and electronic devices. Information was displayed clearly on display boards in communal areas. The service employed multilingual staff and could access translation services.

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.

There was a complaints process, and people and relatives confirmed they knew how to raise concerns. The service had not received any formal complaints and relatives said concerns were dealt with effectively and in a timely manner. A relative said, “My [relative’s] care is discussed with me on a regular basis. One issue I had was dealt with promptly.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The building and premises were accessible, with plenty of level access space outside for walking, and space for visitors to park. There were bathing facilities available for people that had mobility needs, and moving and handling equipment was available and regularly serviced. People commented staff knew how to use equipment, for example, “I feel the staff know their jobs. I am moved by a hoist all the time and I am confident the staff know how to use it correctly.” People and staff had access to management support outside of normal working hours if required.

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.

There were appropriate policies and staff completed training to help them understand equality and discrimination. People and staff did not report any concerns about discrimination, but the manager and staff confirmed they would be able to identify this and take action to challenge.

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.

People had documents that guided staff about what to do in the event of a cardiac arrest (DNACPRs). However, record keeping around this was unclear. There were discrepancies between information held on the electronic care planning system, and paper records, which meant there could be confusion about what to in an emergency situation. We fed this back to the manager who agreed to review this immediately. Staff completed training in palliative and end of life care, and the provider checked staff competency around this. End of life care plans were evident in people’s records.