Enter and view: Belvedere Care Home
Download (PDF 1.15 MB)Summary of report content
Healthwatch Lancashire undertook an Enter and View visit to Belvedere Care Home in Accrington on 25 August 2016. The purpose of the visit was to observe the quality of care, gather feedback from residents, staff, and relatives, and identify areas of good practice and potential improvement.
Belvedere Care Home is a privately owned residential facility providing care for up to 38 older people, including those with dementia. At the time of the visit, there were seven vacancies. The home is arranged over three floors and aims to provide a homely environment for residents.
Overall, the environment and facilities were rated 4 out of 5, reflecting generally positive impressions but with some notable concerns.
The external environment was identified as an area needing improvement. Inspectors observed litter, weeds, building debris, and graffiti, and noted the lack of a suitable smoking shelter. However, access to the building was secure and entry procedures were efficient.
Inside the home, the first impressions were very positive, with a welcoming atmosphere and friendly staff. Communal areas such as lounges and dining rooms were clean, comfortable, and well presented, and a variety of additional spaces (e.g. cinema room, library, and activity rooms) were available, although not all were in use during the visit.
Some issues were identified in reception and facilities management, including the absence of a visitor signing-in book and hand sanitiser, limited information displays, and inconsistent cleanliness in bathrooms. Certain areas also required updating, and dementia-friendly design features were not consistently applied.
Observations of staff and resident interactions showed that staff were friendly, caring, and attentive, and knew residents well. However, staff appeared rushed due to workload pressures, and there were concerns about the lack of call bells in communal areas and occasional lapses in confidentiality.
Feedback from residents indicated mixed experiences. Many residents were satisfied with their rooms and felt safe, and most reported being able to speak to staff if needed. However, some raised concerns about privacy, delays in responding to call bells, and limited choice in daily routines or meal options.
In terms of food and nutrition, most residents were happy with the quality of meals, which were home-cooked, but reported inconsistency in menu choice and limited flexibility about where meals could be eaten.
Regarding activities, residents said that staff were kind and visitors were welcomed at any time, but opportunities for activities and outings were limited. Few residents felt supported to pursue their individual interests.
Feedback from a relative was very positive, describing the care as excellent and noting improvements in their family member’s wellbeing. Staff themselves reported high job satisfaction, good training, and confidence in providing person-centred care, although they acknowledged the workload could be demanding.
The provider responded to the findings by explaining some of the issues (such as external grounds and hygiene practices) and outlining actions taken, including installing a visitor book, adding hand sanitiser, and updating the website. A follow-up visit confirmed some improvements had been made.