White Pearl House

The service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations. Systems had been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service. Significant improvements had also been made which ensured medicines were managed safely. The registered manager had improved oversight of the service to ensure they assessed, monitored and improved the quality of the service. Improvements had also been made to ensure consent was being gained, which helped reduce the risk of abuse.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people; respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. The registered manager investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and risks were mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience, though recruitment practices needed some improvement and the registered manager offered us assurance that necessary improvements would be made. The registered manager made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff mostly managed medicines well.

People were involved in the assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people and made decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. Some work was needed to ensure end of life information and staff knowledge in this area was appropriate and in place. The registered manager assured us this would be actioned.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement. Audits and oversight was in place, though some minor improvements were needed in this area to ensure all risks were identified. The registered manager made changes to audits during our inspection to offer assurances in this area.