Bellamy House (Empowering U Care)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager had a clear and consistent direction, supported by experienced and stable leadership. They told us they were considering stepping back from day‑to‑day responsibilities and were focused on passing on their experience to the wider management team to ensure continuity. They explained the service had benefitted from many years of stable management, and maintaining high‑quality care remaining their priority. The registered manager also described their forward planning to ensure the service continued to develop and maintain its reputation as a specialist provider.

Staff described the registered manager set clear expectations with a positive working culture where everyone worked towards the same goals. Communication was open, and staff felt able to raise issues or share ideas. Regular meetings and supervision helped maintain a shared understanding of the service’s values and expectations, and the records we reviewed supported this. For example, we saw an email sent to all staff reminding them about maintaining professional boundaries, social media conduct and not accepting gifts, which reinforced the service’s expectations around professional behaviour.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff told us the management team were caring, approachable and always available for support. They said they could contact the registered manager with any queries and would receive help and guidance when needed.

Communication between staff and management was effective. There were established systems in place, including regular meetings and clear channels for sharing information, which helped the registered manager maintain good oversight of the quality of care being provided.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff felt confident to speak up and raise concerns. They told us the management team were approachable, supportive and listened to any issues brought to them. Staff also confirmed they would know who to contact if they needed to raise concerns outside of the organisation.

The registered manager told us openness was encouraged and they operated an open-door policy.

There were policies in place for whistleblowing, raising concerns, and freedom to speak up, providing staff with clear guidance on how to report any worries safely.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The service promoted equality, diversity and inclusion within the workforce. Staff told us they felt valued and treated fairly by the management team. The registered manager encouraged an inclusive culture where staff could request changes to their working hours or ask for support without judgement. Staff said they felt able to speak openly with leaders, who offered flexibility and understanding when adjustments were needed to support their wellbeing.

Staff supported the person in an inclusive way that respected their identity, preferences and communication styles. Policies were in place to support fair recruitment and equal opportunities.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There were established governance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Leaders carried out regular reviews of the person’s care plans, risks and individual needs, and records showed where updates or improvements had been made. Oversight arrangements included routine management meetings, checks of daily practice and ongoing monitoring of any incidents or concerns. Where shortfalls were identified, such as care not being delivered as planned or guidance requiring clarification, the management team acted promptly to review practice and implement the necessary changes.

Feedback from professionals and staff was considered as part of the service’s quality assurance processes, and themes were reviewed and addressed appropriately. Professionals were encouraged to share feedback about the support the person received. The registered manager told us questionnaires were sent to gather views and used to improve care.

We reviewed staff feedback gathered in August 2025 by the registered manager, who explained that broader themes were discussed during management meetings while individual concerns were addressed privately with staff due to confidentiality.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service worked in partnership with a range of external professionals to support the person’s needs and improve outcomes. The registered manager and senior staff worked closely with NHS teams, social workers, GPs, consultants and the Intensive Support Team (IST) to review care, share information and agree any changes needed to the person’s support. These partnerships helped ensure the person received coordinated and consistent care across different services.

Management worked with external professionals to review the impact of changes to the person’s care, such as medication adjustments. They told us this collaborative approach had contributed to positive outcomes, including reductions in anxiety and fewer incidents. The registered manager explained the service followed the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over‑Medication of People with a Learning Disability and Autism) and STAMP (Supporting Treatment and Appropriate Medication in Paediatrics) to ensure the person received the least restrictive and most appropriate treatment.

Staff told us they supported the person to stay connected with the local community and social networks. This included helping the person attend community groups and events that were important to them. Staff also supported the person to access health services, community activities and cultural or social opportunities in line with their preferences.

The service also engaged with external agencies during quality reviews and inspections. Documentation showed that learning from local authority visits, mock CQC inspections and professional feedback was used to strengthen practice and improve the service.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff told us the service promoted a strong learning culture. They said they received ongoing mandatory training as well as additional training tailored to the person’s individual needs. Staff told us they were encouraged to develop their skills and were supported to pursue both personal and professional development. They also described working well as a team, communicating clearly and using consistent approaches to meet shared goals. Staff said regular updates from the registered manager helped reinforce good practice and remind them of expectations, including professional boundaries, social media conduct and completing medication audits.

We found the service demonstrated continuous learning and improvement. Records showed there were regular management meetings where training needs, safeguarding concerns, staff welfare and the quality of care were reviewed.