19 Stone Lane

At our last inspection, this key question was rated requires improvement, improvements have been made and this key question is now rated good and is no longer in breach of regulations. At our last inspection, we made a recommendation the provider ensures risk assessment systems are person-centred, proportionate and consider the least restrictive option to support people's freedom, choice and control, at this inspection, improvements had been made.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse, staff understood how to report concerns and who to escalate to within and outside of the organisation. Where people required applications to be made in their best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, these were made in a timely way.

People were involved as much as possible to manage their care and support, including risks. Staff were provided with clear guidelines to support people safely, respecting their wishes and preferences.

There were enough trained and skilled staff deployed to support people. Staff were recruited safely and supervised appropriately.

Medicines were managed safely. Audits were completed to identify areas of concern, management made changes where needed to address areas of improvement. Staff and managers learned from audits, incidents and accidents; plans were put in place to minimise the chance of reoccurrence.

At our last inspection, this key question was rated requires improvement, improvements have been made and this key question is now rated good, the service was no longer in breach of regulations.

People’s rights were now being respected, people were able to safely access all parts of the service, including the kitchen where they were empowered to make meals and drinks as they pleased. Staff worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were asked consent for all support interactions. People and/or their legal representatives were asked to read and sign consent forms to enable staff to offer support. Staff respected people’s wishes and right to decline care.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them living at the service and reviewed when their needs changed. Staff used nationally recognised tools to identify risks and planned care and support to address and mitigate the risks.

People experienced good outcomes of care by receiving joined up care from staff and health and social care professionals. Staff followed professionals’ advice, monitored the effectiveness of treatment plans, and provided feedback to professionals about how people were responding.

At our last inspection, this key question was rated requires improvement, improvements have been made and this key question is now rated good, the service was no longer in breach of regulations.

Governance processes were now in place and were effective in driving improvements and positive outcomes for people; when shortfalls were identified, these were addressed. The registered manager and staff created a culture to support the delivery of high-quality care.

The registered manager was capable and compassionate and developed a culture that delivered good quality care for people in partnership with health and social care professionals. People, family members and external health and social care professionals told us they felt the service was well led.

People, their relatives and staff were able to feedback about the service through quality survey questionnaires, meetings and casual conversations. Feedback was listened to and addressed.