Bell House Care Home Limited

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 changed to requires improvement.This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 43 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There was a distinct lack of activities or stimulation in the service. Interactions with staff were largely task orientated. Activity documentation showed consistently that only one activity was taking place per day when the activity timetable documented there should be 3. The rest of the time, there was little to no stimulation for people. Staff played music in communal areas, however, did not ask people what they would like to listen to. The television was put on but people were not asked what they would like to watch. Several visiting professionals including the Local Authority and GP told us they have observed a lack of stimulation for people. People and relatives told us personal items had gone missing.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider did not understand the diverse needs of the people they supported, and the local community. We received mixed feedback from professionals as to whether people’s care was joined up. One professional advised the provider makes appropriate referrals. However, 1 professional told us the service have not made appropriate referrals to them for 2 people.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not provide information in a way which was accessible to people. Complaints and safeguarding information were available in the service; however, this was in small print, and there was no contact information available. We were told there were accessible food menus available, however, these were rarely used. The signage to support orientation in the building was poor. Many people at the service were living with dementia and they were not supported to have information which would help them be orientated to time and place.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Resident meetings were infrequent. However, people and relatives were provided with a survey to provide feedback. People, or their relatives were not involved in care plan reviews. Most people told us they had not seen their care plans.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider did not ensure equitable access for people who were more likely to experience inequality under The Equality Act 2010 (EA, 2010). Care documentation showed the provider made appropriate referrals to some services, for example, the local falls team. However, professionals provided negative feedback as to whether the provider ensured people could access the support they need. One professional told us that although the service does make referrals, communication with them is poor. Another professional advised appropriate referrals had not been made to them.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

The provider did not ensure equitable experiences and outcomes for people who were more likely to experience inequality under the EA, 2010. There were people residing at the service for whom the provider was not registered to support, for example, people with mental health issues. The provider had not considered whether the service was an appropriate place for some people. The provider also failed to notify CQC of changes to their registration.

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.

There were appropriate systems in place regarding important life decisions, such as, end of life. Staff had completed appropriate training, and people and their relatives confirmed to us discussions had taken place regarding end-of-life planning. This was evidenced in people’s care plans.