Essex Care Consortium - Colchester

At our last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this inspection the rating has improved to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. We looked at all the quality statements for Safe at this assessment. We found there has been an improvement in the service since the last inspection. Overall, the service was safe, but improvements were needed to ensure safety was given top priority. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence categories below. Systems to protect people from avoidable harm or abuse and keep them safe had improved. Lessons had been learned from previous safety incidents, however managing risk was still not always seen a as priority, by the provider. Restrictive practices were not always being carried out in accordance with legislation, and best practice. Arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises, including fire safety were not always effective. Improvements were needed to manage people’s medicines and ensure the premises was clean and hygienic. There were enough suitable staff with the right competencies, knowledge, and attitude needed to keep people safe and meet their needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this inspection the rating has improved to requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service continued to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service. We looked at all of the quality statements for Well-led at this assessment. We found the service was not always well-led. Although some improvements had been made since the last inspection, the assessment found ongoing concerns about governance and oversight of the service. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below.

The provider continued not to have effective governance systems in place to identify risks to the quality and safety of the service. There was a lack of accountability and systems in place at provider level to safely manage risk. The senior management team did not keep up to date with statutory guidance in relation to supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people, specifically where periods of seclusion were carried out. The provider had learned lessons from previous incidents and made improvements to keep people safe from the risk of choking, but needed to ensure these improvements were embedded and sustained. Managers had worked well with partners to ensure people received joined up care. The service valued diversity in their workforce.