Eachstep Blackburn

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulation. However, we found further improvements were needed to care plans and the provider was working on this.

Processes around the safe administration of medicines and safe storage of medicines needed to be consistently robust. One person had been exposed to risk when offered a meal with an ingredient their care plan stated they were allergic to. The person came to no harm and the provider reviewed their processes to lessen the risk of this happening again.

The management team reviewed incident and took action to prevent their reoccurrence. Care plans now guided safe practice. The provider had enough staff to ensure people’s safety and meet their needs.

People were supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their care. Improvements had been made to the processes to manage risk and people were supported by staff who knew the help people needed to promote their safety.

People lived in a clean environment and staff followed processes to minimise the risk and spread of infection. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Staff were recruited safely, undertook training and were deployed so people received support when this was needed or requested. People lived in an environment that was well maintained and equipment was also checked to ensure its safety.

The provider had a food hygiene rating of 5. This meant the hygiene standards were very good. The registered manager assessed risks to ensure people were safe. The registered manager and staff promoted positive risk taking to help people gain skills and live an independent life as possible. There were effective safeguarding processes in place, which staff had received training on, to support people’s safety.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

Staff worked to achieve good outcomes for people. People’s needs were assessed, and care plans were developed to meet their individual needs. Reviews of care were regularly carried out and if required, external health professionals were involved to ensure care and support met best practice guidelines.

Staff worked with external health professionals and delivered care according to health professional’s instructions. If people had individual dietary needs, these were accommodated, and regular monitoring of people’s health took place to promote their wellbeing. People (or their representative) were involved in care planning and consent was sought before care was delivered. If restrictions were required, the service followed a legal framework to ensure these were lawful.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

It was clear from feedback received and observations during the assessment that staff were caring. We overheard 1 staff member greet everyone when they walked into the lounge. One person said, “I love you.” The staff member responded with, “I love you too.”

Staff respected people’s individual choices and made sure they engaged in their care, to promote positive outcomes. However, we did raise some concerns related to data protection and the management of confidential information. This was discussed with the management team and some safeguards were put in place.

People had access to their friends and families and the service supported these relationships. People gave examples of how staff respected their choices and promoted their independence.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence services were organised so that they met people’s needs.

People received person centred care from a group of staff who knew people well. People and their families felt listened to by staff and involved in making decisions about their care. Their accessibility needs were taken into consideration including mobility and communication. People had communication assessments as part of their care planning pathway.

The service worked closely with other health and social care professionals to provide a consistent service that was tailored to individual needs and preferences. This included any end of life decisions related to treatment and preferred places of care.

People’s protected characteristics and diversity needs were considered in line with the Equality Act 2010. The Act ensures everyone is lawfully protected from discrimination.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulation. Governance systems were designed, used and monitored to improve the service provided. However, these systems did not identify the concerns we identified. The providers governance systems were under review.

Staff were supported by the management team and communicated changes and good practice to them to support positive outcomes for people. There was an open culture and team working was evident. Any lessons learned were actioned identified and shared with staff.