We carried out a review of the data available to us about Belmont Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Belmont Road, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff had their temperatures checked daily. Hand washing facilities and personal protection equipment (PPE) was available to staff. All staff received competency checks around infection control practices which included good hand washing techniques and use of appropriate PPE.
All staff wore PPE when assisting people with their personal needs. Staff maintained social distance and the service had contingency plans in place to cohort and isolate, should this be needed. Staff received appropriate training in infection control and how to put on and remove their PPE. The registered manager completed regular visual checks of the service to ensure best practice was maintained.
There were regular staff meetings to discuss any recent advice and guidance. All updates and guidance were shared with staff and kept in a designated COVID-19 folder assessible to staff. There was an easy read guide about COVID-19 to support peoples understanding. Individual risk assessments were completed to keep people and staff safe.
The building looked clean and free from clutter. Appropriate cleaning products were used, to ensured good infection control was maintained. All frequently touched areas such as door handles were cleaned regularly, and tasks completed were documented daily.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 19 October 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 16 January 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found overall the service remained ‘Good’.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Systems were in place to manage risks to people living at the home and to keep them safe.
There was sufficient numbers of staff on duty to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to work with people living at the home
Medicines continued to be managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported to make choices and have control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People's nutritional needs continued to be met and people were supported to have enough to eat and drink. A range of healthcare professionals visited the service and people went to visit healthcare professionals to support people to maintain good health.
People were cared for by staff who treated them with warmth, kindness and compassion. Staff showed they genuinely cared about the people they were looking after. They respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as they could be. Visitors were welcomed and also had warm, friendly relationships with the staff.
Care plans did not provide full details and guidance staff on how the care each person needed. However staff were knowledgeable about the care and support people needed. People were encouraged to participate in activities and interests of their choice.
Complaints information was available in the home. The complaints log showed that they had been addressed in line with the provider’s policy.
People, staff and visitors to the service were encouraged to put forward their views about the service being provided. The quality of the care was monitored by a range of audits that were carried out regularly.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Belmont Road is registered to provide accommodation and non-nursing care for up to 13 people who live with a learning and physical disability. The home is located in a residential area of the Fenland market town of March. When we visited there were 13 people living at the home.
The inspection took place on 14 April 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection was carried out on 06 August 2014 when the provider had met the regulations that we inspected against.
A registered manager was in post when we inspected the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were safe living at the home as staff were knowledgeable about reporting any abuse. There were a sufficient number of staff employed and recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected with the safe management of their medicines.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS applications had been made to ensure that people’s rights were protected. Staff were supported and trained to do their job.
People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Health risk assessments were in place to ensure that people were supported to maintain their health. People were provided with adequate amounts of food and drink to meet their individual likes and nutritional and hydration needs.
People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their care was provided in a caring and compassionate way.
People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and a range of activities supported people with these. A complaints procedure was in place and this was followed by staff. People could raise concerns with the staff at any time.
The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to improve, if needed, the quality and safety of people’s support and care. A staff training and development programme was in place and procedures were in place to review the standard of staff members’ work performance and levels of absence.
It was evident when talking to the staff that everyone was part of the team, ensuring good care to those living in the home. One staff member said: "Everybody supports everybody else". All staff said they had supervision and appraisals regularly, which meant staff felt supported.
Staff told us about the day trips that take place as well as the choices of the longer holidays people want to go on. Two people had been to London to see a show and stayed overnight. People had taken holidays in Yarmouth and a variety of Butlins and Center Parcs locations. Day trips were chosen by those living in the home and arranged by staff. These included going to the park, the pub, swimming, church visits, theatre, to the zoo and shopping.
The care records we looked at included detailed information on how people's needs were to be met. Although risk assessments had not been reviewed but new forms had been introduced by the provider and the deputy manager was in the process of completing these.
Various auditing tools were in place and these ensured the provider had reviewed and provided people with good care and support.