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.

The person’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 told us they reviewed relevant documents, considered the person’s communication needs and preferences, to gain an accurate understanding of their history, routines and support requirements.

Care plans were developed using assessment information and were treated as live documents, updated throughout the year whenever changes were identified. The registered manager informed us they worked with relevant people to assess the person’s needs to put the care in place.

Records we reviewed detailed the person’s assessed needs and provided clear information about their background and 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.

The provider’s systems included evidence based tools to assess the person’s needs and identify the support required. Training records confirmed staff had completed mandatory training, and specialist training was provided where required. Training also met the standards of the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice, ensuring staff had the knowledge needed to support people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

Care plans were detailed and up to date, including assessments for communication, behaviour, nutrition and hydration, mobility, personal care and medication. Staff told us they used these plans daily to guide their practice. For example, mobility plans reflected the use of orthotic footwear to reduce falls, while nutrition plans incorporated portion control and how food was prepared based on assessed risks. Communication plans set out how to use Picture Exchange Communication Systems (PECS), picture cards and simple words, ensuring the person could be involved in decisions about their care. Records we saw supported what staff told us and showed care was delivered in line with evidence‑based assessments and review processes.

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 registered manager told us, “Handovers are done through the on‑call system, and each person has their own setup for recording information. Everything is documented on their digital recording software including, daily records and handovers, so the whole team can see updates and keep things consistent”. Records we saw supported this.

Stakeholders and partners told us they had no concerns about communication or engagement with the provider and described the service as open, cooperative and well‑managed.

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.

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

Staff told us, the person was supported to access the community regularly, including trips to sensory environments and outdoor spaces, which helped promote physical activity, stimulation and positive wellbeing.

The provider had clear systems to ensure health needs were assessed, monitored, and reviewed. Health‑related care plans and risk assessments were in place, covering areas such as mobility, nutrition and hydration, communication, medication, and specific identified health risks. These documents outlined the actions staff were required to take and demonstrated that assessments were reviewed within appropriate timescales. Staff were knowledgeable about the health needs identified in the plans and were able to describe how they supported the person in line with clinical guidance and professional recommendations. Staff also described how improvements in communication, independence, and engagement had occurred as a result of consistent support and structured routines, demonstrating positive outcomes linked to the person’s health and wellbeing. Records we saw corroborated what we were told.

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.

Staff also monitored progress in areas such as communication, personal care and daily living skills. The person was 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 the 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 the person in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The person was involved in day‑to‑day decisions wherever possible, and staff used communication methods such as Picture Exchange Communication Systems (PECS) and Makaton to help them understand choices.

Mental capacity assessments were completed when required, and staff knew when decisions needed to be made in the person’s best interests. Where the person required continuous supervision or restriction, the appropriate legal authorisations were applied for.

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

Records we saw showed the person had their capacity assessed and best‑interest decisions documented, and this was supported with what we were told.