Belvidere Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There were systems in place to ensure lessons were learnt to ensure good practice was continued. The deputy manager spoke positively about the learning culture of the home. They gave us examples and we saw how learning was identified and displayed in the home, so this could be shared with people, staff and families.

Staff told us they were involved with this process, and they confirmed information was shared with them when needed. They felt involved with all aspects of learning within the home.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved with the assessment process. The registered manager or deputy completed these assessments to ensure they could meet people’s needs. We saw assessments had been completed face to face for people before care was delivered, this included meeting with the person and those important to them. Nurses and staff confirmed the assessments were detailed and contained enough information about people, so that care plans and risks assessments could be developed.

We saw care plans and risk assessments were developed based on this assessment. Records confirmed care was delivered in line with people’s assessed needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

People and relatives raised no concerns about safety. All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home. A relative also said, “I do think she is safe though. There is always a member of staff in the lounge to make sure she is safe”.

There were systems in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified, reviewed and investigated when needed. Staff had received training in this area and records we viewed confirmed this.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that when needed, DoLS were in place for people.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives felt their risks were understood by staff and care was delivered safely. One person said, “I can’t stand up by myself, so they hoist me. There are always 2 staff to hoist me safely”. A relative told us, “She’s safe there. They check her every hour in the night. They use the proper equipment to keep her safe when walking with her. She needs 1 member of staff with her at all times when walking and that is what I have seen”.

There was a system in place to ensure people had care plans and risk assessments that had been developed individually, based on their assessed needs, which were regularly reviewed. These plans considered people’s mobility needs, dietary needs, when people had sore skin and periods of emotional distress. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred. Care plans and risk assessments were developed with people and those important to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

Where needed any risks to the environment or premises had been considered and assessed. For example, checks were completed to ensure fire equipment was safe to use and working. Some areas of the home were in need of redecoration and there were plans in place to address this, including flooring which had recently been replaced.

There were processes in place to ensure any risks were identified so that appropriate action could be taken. This included equipment people used to mobilise being reviewed weekly to ensure it was safe to use.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people.

Some people, relatives and staff felt there could be more staff. However, everyone we spoke with confirmed there were always enough staff available to keep people safe. A relative told us, “There’s times I think there could be more staff, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t get the care he needs”. A person said, “There’s enough staff here”. Another person commented, “They answer my buzzer in a few seconds, I think. So, I do think there’s enough staff”.

We saw there were enough staff available for people, and they did not have to wait for support. There was an effective system in place to ensure there was an appropriate number of staff available.

Records confirmed staff had received training. This included mandatory training and training that was specific to people’s individual needs.

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working with people to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

People and relatives were happy with the cleanliness of the home. One relative told us, “His room is always clean, I have no complaints at all about his care”.

Staff told us and records confirmed they had received training in infection control and prevention (IPC). There was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for staff and when needed this was used correctly. There were processes in place to monitor IPC to ensure concerns were identified so appropriate action could be taken.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

No concerns were raised with how medicines were managed. One person told us, “I get my medicine from the nurse every day.”

Records we viewed confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed. When people had ‘as required’ medicines, there was detailed guidance in place for staff to follow to ensure people had these at the correct time and only when needed.

Staff administering medicines had received training to ensure they were safe to administer these to people.

We saw medicines were stored securely to ensure any risks associated were considered. Checks were completed on medicines to ensure stock levels were correct and accurate. Audits of medicines were also completed.