Turret Villa Retirement Home

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.

The provider was no longer in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment as identified at the last assessment however; a new breach was identified at this inspection in relation to premises and equipment.

This meant some aspects of the service were unsafe and there was potential for people to be at risk of harm owing to issues identified with fire safety equipment and emergency escape routes.

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The provider was no longer in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care as identified at the last assessment.

People’s needs were assessed and appropriate care provision put in place, including adapting care plans when people’s needs changed. People were supported to maintain their skin integrity, and to maintain a healthy diet and fluid intake. Staff worked well together and with other health and social care partners, which people had access to when needed. People’s mental capacity was assessed in line with the mental capacity act and best interests decisions were put in place if needed.

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. People and their relatives felt that staff knew them well and treated them as individuals. People were supported to maintain their independence and make choices about their lives. Staff responded to people’s immediate needs quickly, calmly and appropriately. Staff felt well supported by the management team.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People received person-centred care which was responsive to their needs. There were processes in place to ensure the continuity of people’s care when their needs changed. Information was available to people in formats they could understand. People experienced equitable care and were able to share their thoughts on the service and how it was run. People received good quality care at the end of their lives.

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant the service was not always consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created did not always promote high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was no longer in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance as identified at the last assessment

There was a positive culture and shared direction amongst staff at the service. The management team had made significant improvements to the service since the last inspection. Staff felt able to speak up about concerns or make suggestions for improvements to the service, they raised no concerns about diversity and inclusion. The management team worked in partnership with most health and social care services to benefit people. The service learnt from accidents, incidents and other events. The provider had not followed the recommended guidance from the fire service or the fire alarm maintenance company meaning people were at risk of harm.