Bell House Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.The service was in breach of legal regulations relating to person centred care.

This service scored 40 (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 did not always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff did not always provide person centred care as interactions were largely task orientated however, people and relatives largely provided positive feedback regarding the kindness of staff. One person told us, “They [staff] treat me with respect and dignity.” A relative told us, “The staff are friendly and caring.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were subjected to blanket restrictions. For example, restricted access to the garden, without consideration to individual needs and preferences and without assessing each person’s safety individually. The provider had individualised care plans in place, and there was information regarding people’s life histories. However, there were blank restrictions in place such as restricted access to the garden, without consideration to assess each person’s safety individually.

People’s life histories were included in care records to support people’s individuality.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider did not support to maximise their independence. People wanted to go outside, and they were refused by staff. This culture was reinforced by leaders at the service. Most people told us they had not had sight of their care plan, and as a result, they were not involved in decision making regarding their care.

The provider did not listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff did not always respond effectively to people’s needs. There were times when staff failed to protect people. Staff did not effectively intervene when people showed signs of distress. There was no oversight in place regarding responsiveness of staff when people used call bells.

People and relative’s felt confident staff would seek support from relevant health services if required, such as the GP.

Staff did respond to people regarding task-based engagement, such as supporting with meals.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff and support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We observed staff interactions were not person centred, and were task orientated. However, staff we spoke with advised us their wellbeing was supported by the provider. One staff member told us, “Everyone is cooperative with each other, management and director are approachable. If we need anything from them, we speak to them.”