Belmont House Care Home

Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. People remained at risk of avoidable harm. The provider had not robustly reviewed care plans and risk assessments and kept these updated. We observed some risks in the environment. People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. We received mixed feedback about staffing levels. However, people told us they felt safe. Recruitment processes were robust. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding. Safeguarding procedures were in place and the registered manager had good oversight of accidents and incidents. Processes were in place to ensure appropriate referrals were made to external professionals when needed. Systems were in place to allow visitor access, while ensuring people’s safety. The home and people’s rooms were clean and well-maintained. The provider was responsive to our feedback and sought to resolve the issues we identified as soon as possible.

Our rating for this key question remains good. People and relatives spoke positively about staff and confirmed they were supported with their independence, choice and control. People were involved in discussions about their care and were supported with their communication needs. There were no restrictions on visiting, so people could see their families and friends whenever they wanted.

Our rating for this key question remains good. People were content with the care and support they received. Staff responded well to people’s needs. People, staff and relatives were supported to raise their concerns, speak with management, and discuss their views and feedback. No concerns were raised about discrimination or inequality.

Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. Despite a previous breach of legal regulation in relation to governance, with action taken by the provider to make some improvements, the governance procedures in place had failed to highlight the issues we identified during this assessment. There was a lack of consistent and accurate recording of information in some people’s care records. Learning from incidents was not always embedded. Continued work was needed to ensure sustained improvement in accurate record-keeping. However, the provider collaborated well with healthcare and other professionals to ensure people received appropriate care and support. Appropriate policies were in place to protect staff from discrimination. Most staff spoke positively about the management team. We observed staff behaving in a manner which adhered to the provider’s values. Leaders were open and transparent during the assessment process, and they understood ongoing improvements were needed. The provider was responsive to our feedback and sought to implement changes during and following the assessment.