Bellamy House (Empowering U Care)

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Staff had access to clear information on the electronic system and through daily handovers.

Staff told us building rapport helped them understand the person better over time, which helped them provide consistent and personalised support.

We found the persons care records contained personalised information designed to support staff in delivering person‑centred care. This included details about the individual’s likes and dislikes, their preferences around personal care, and any other information important to their daily wellbeing. Updates or changes were documented within the care plan and communicated to staff as required.

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 registered manager had systems in place to ensure the person received continuity of care. They explained the person’s mobility needs and associated risks were assessed when they first started using the service, and referrals were made to relevant professionals where additional assessments were required. Staff were allocated consistently to the person, which helped ensure stable support and continuity in how the person’s needs were met.

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

Staff we spoke with supported the person to understand information in ways that suited their communication needs.

Staff explained that they supported the person to understand information by discussing it in a clear and accessible way. Staff said they sought clarification from professionals on the persons behalf when questions arose. We saw alternative formats, such as large‑print information, were available for the person.

Information about the person’s communication needs was included in their care plans and risk assessments and records we viewed confirmed this.

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.

Staff involved the person in day‑to‑day decisions and adapted their approach to meet the person’s communication needs. Care plans outlined how the person used PECs, picture cards and simple words to express preferences.

We saw that the service had a complaints policy in place. We also reviewed complaint records, which showed that concerns were logged, reviewed and that appropriate action had been taken.

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

The registered manager explained a 24‑hour on‑call system was in place, with both a team leader and the registered manager available for support. This meant staff could access guidance day or night, ensuring the person received consistent support and was not left without the help they needed.

Staff advocated for the person to ensure their care and support reflected their individual preferences and wishes. They promoted the person’s rights by encouraging them to be part of their local community and access opportunities in the same way as others.

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 explained how they ensured the person had equal access to support, opportunities, and outcomes. They understood how the persons health needs, disabilities or personal circumstances could create barriers in daily life, and care plans included information to help staff recognise and respond to these inequalities.

The registered manager described challenging situations where the person was not treated fairly by external professionals and ensured they received equal treatment and appropriate support. They also shared examples of how they would promote the rights and choices of others if required, including supporting individuals undergoing gender transition by helping them access appropriate services and ensuring their identity and choices were respected.

The person was encouraged to take part in activities they enjoyed and participate in their local communities. Staff supported the person to attend events when needed and promoted independence so the person could achieve positive outcomes at a pace that suited them.

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.

At the time of the inspection, the service was not supporting anyone receiving end‑of‑life care. However, the registered manager explained, when required, the service would follow the person’s care plan and ensure all support was delivered respectfully and in line with their wishes. Staff would work closely with hospice nurses and other professionals to make sure the person was fully supported. The registered manager also told us an end‑of‑life care plan would be put in place, so everyone involved understood what the person wanted and needed, helping ensure their choices and preferences were upheld.