Belmont House

Updated 20 March 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was completed by two inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The Expert by Experience had experience in caring for older people and people living with dementia.

Service and service type:

Belmont House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

This service is required to have a manager registered with CQC. If a manager is registered with CQC, this means both the manager and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of this inspection, a new manager had recently started working at the service and was registered with CQC.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Before this inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as any feedback we had received since the last inspection and information we had received from the provider. Providers are required by law to notify us of certain events, such as when a person who uses the service suffers a serious injury. We took this information into account when we inspected the service.

We contacted social care commissioners who help arrange and monitor the care of people living at the service. We also contacted Healthwatch (Sheffield). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used the feedback from these organisations to plan our inspection.

During this inspection we spoke with three people living at the service and four of their relatives. We spoke with nine members of staff which included two care workers, the deputy manager, a nurse, a senior, a cook, an activity coordinator, head of housekeeping and the manager. We spoke with two community health professionals who were visiting Belmont House on the day of the inspection, to obtain their views about the service.

We looked at three people's care records in detail and selected documents from five other care records. We checked seven medication administration records and three staff files which included recruitment checks, supervisions, appraisals and training records. We also looked at other records relating to the management of the service, such as quality assurance audits.

We spent time observing the daily life in the service and we looked around the building to check environmental safety and cleanliness.

Updated 20 March 2019

About the service:

Belmont House is a care home that provides accommodation and personal or nursing care for up to 52 people. At the time of this inspection there were 42 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

• Belmont House had sustained compliance with the regulations since the last inspection but aspects of the service had deteriorated. A new manager had recently started working at the service. They were responsive to inspection feedback and understood further improvements to the service were required;

• People told us staff were kind and caring. They were positive about how they were treated by staff. People told us they were in control of their day to day routines and staff supported them to remain independent. Staff asked people for consent before providing care, however improvements were required in how the service recorded assessments of people’s capacity to make decisions and best interest decisions made on their behalf;

• People felt safe whilst residing at Belmont House. They had access to other community health professionals as required. Staff supported them safely with their medicines;

• Most staff could tell us about people’s likes and dislikes and knew information about people’s backgrounds. They used this knowledge to care for people in the way they wanted. However, information about people’s preferred priorities for care at the end stages of their lifer was not recorded in detail in people’s care records, which meant their wishes or preferences were at risk of not being followed or respected;

• Refurbishment and redecoration was ongoing at the service. Clear signage was available to orientate people to key places in the service. However, further improvements were required to make the service dementia friendly;

• Staff received a range of training and people thought staff had the right skills and experience to care for them effectively.;

• People were positive about the quality of the food. People were provided with a range of food options that met their nutritional requirements;

• Risks to people receiving care at Belmont House were assessed and kept under review. People’s needs were assessed and support plans were developed to guide staff in how to care for each person.

• People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about the range of activities which took place both in the home and in the community. We have made a recommendation about the provision of activities at the service;

• People who used the service and their relatives told us they had confidence in the management team and they could raise any concerns, which would be responded to. They also had the opportunity to attend regular meetings about the service to provide feedback and ideas for improvement. Relevant stakeholders were not always asked for feedback about the service in order to drive improvements;

• The service met the characteristics of good in all key questions, with the exception of responsive. The manager had plans in place to improve other areas of the service.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good (published 23 June 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.