Bellamy House (Empowering U Care)

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before support began, and a pre‑admission assessment was completed to ensure the service could meet those needs safely and effectively. Staff reviewed relevant documents, considered people’s communication needs and preferences, and spoke with families or next of kin to gain an accurate understanding of each person’s history, routines and support requirements.

Where needed, assessments included a sensory pen portrait to help staff understand how people responded to their environment and any sensory sensitivities that might affect their support.

The registered manager explained they used an assessment tool to determine the level of support each person needed, with outcomes shared with social workers to confirm support hours.

Care plans were developed using assessment information and were treated as live documents, updated throughout the year whenever changes were identified. One staff member said, “If we notice anything during support, we report it to the registered manager so it can be added to the care plan. I can make initial notes or changes, and the office updates the official care plan if anything has been missed.”

When people had family involvement, relatives were included in assessments and reviews. Where people did not have family involvement, staff stayed in contact with social workers, GPs or consultants to ensure assessments remained accurate and up to date. Records we reviewed showed clear information about the person, their background and their medical history.

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.

People received support informed by best practice and tailored to their individual needs. Staff followed care plans that set out clear, evidence‑based approaches for supporting each person. Staff knew people well and used communication techniques that suited each individual, ensuring support was delivered in a way they understood.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met in line with guidance, with referrals to health professionals made when required. For example, records confirmed a referral to occupational therapy had been considered to explore additional support needs, and another person had been assessed by the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team, which confirmed what we were told.

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 told us, information was shared across the team through daily handovers, which were completed verbally and recorded on their system so all staff could see updates.

The registered manager told us, Handovers are done through the on‑call system, and each service user has their own setup for recording information. Everything is documented on their digital recording software including all handovers, so the whole team can see updates and keep things consistent.

Staff worked closely with external professionals and said communication was usually coordinated through the registered manager. One member of staff explained, “They usually communicate directly with the manager, and the manager then passes the information on to us, letting us know when they’re visiting and what to expect.” Professionals sometimes left paperwork for staff to complete with people. Staff told us they usually completed this together with the person. They explained that if they had any concerns, they would speak to the professional privately to share what they had noticed, especially if it was something they did not feel comfortable discussing in front of the person.”

Stakeholders and partners informed us there were no concerns with engaging with the provider.

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.

Relatives told us people were supported to eat healthy diets. One relative told us, “He is supported with cooking, for safety, ok as long as he’s helped. He goes shopping…. he likes to scan it…They do ensure healthy choices.” Records confirmed for those who required dietary adjustments, staff monitored food choices, prepared meals in ways that supported safe eating, and managed SALT intake in line with health guidance.

Relatives told us people were encouraged to participate in activities that supported their physical and emotional wellbeing. They told us the current staff team made sure people had opportunities to be active, make choices and engage in the community in ways that suited them.

One relative said “Independence is supported. He’s offered choices, they go out in the community with him. He goes for walks. He used to love everything, previous placements reduced activity”

People were supported to maintain and improve their health through daily monitoring, timely referrals and support that reflected their individual needs. Staff paid close attention to day‑to‑day changes in how people presented and used behaviour monitoring processes to identify when changes in health might be contributing to increased distress. When behaviour patterns indicated a possible underlying issue, staff reviewed charts and sought GP advice, which led to appropriate treatment and a reduction in behaviours of concern.

People were supported with routines that promoted wellbeing and independence. Staff encouraged involvement in personal care and adapted their approach to help people complete tasks such as tooth brushing, washing and showering, offering prompts and stepping in only when needed.

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.

Records showed staff recorded daily notes, behaviour charts and care updates, which helped identify changes in health, independence or routines. This information was shared so staff could respond quickly to new needs.

Regular monitoring led to timely healthcare interventions. For example, changes in someone’s behaviour resulted in GP involvement and treatment for a health issue, which resulted in appropriate treatment and improvements in their wellbeing.

Staff also monitored progress in areas such as communication, personal care and daily living skills. People were supported to develop independence through small, achievable steps, and staff recorded these developments so the whole team could recognise improvements and continue encouraging them.

Care plans were updated when staff identified new needs or when existing strategies were no longer effective. This helped ensure support stayed relevant and reflected each person’s current needs.

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

Staff understood the importance of gaining consent and supported people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were involved in day‑to‑day decisions wherever possible, and staff used communication methods such as Picture Exchange Communication Systems (PECS) and Makaton suited to each person to help them understand choices.

Mental capacity assessments were completed when required, and staff knew when decisions needed to be made in a person’s best interests. Where people required continuous supervision and were not free to leave, applications were made to the Court of Protection for authorisation (CoPDoL) to ensure restrictions were lawful.

Staff described how they sought consent throughout routine care, such as during personal care, meal preparation and activities. They told us they encouraged people to participate as much as possible and respected their choices.

When people were unable to express consent verbally, staff relied on their knowledge of each person’s communication style and behaviour to understand their preferences.