Providence Court

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. 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.

People felt safe at the service. Staff were familiar with people’s risks, however, there were instances where safe practice was not consistently followed. The management team were addressing this.

Staff were able to tell us what constituted a safeguarding concern, but some staff did not know how to report concerns externally.

People, relatives and staff felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Training was provided, some additional sessions were in progress or planned.

The environment was well maintained, and infection control practices were used. Staff were administering medicines safely.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection 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 felt the care they received was person centred. People and relatives told us they could speak up. Most felt they would be listened to. Complaints were responded to, and meetings were held to share information and obtain views.

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed 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.

Systems were in place to drive improvement and identify any issues. Action plans were in place where needed. These were added to so to include actions needed following our assessment. However the systems had not identified, or addressed, the shortfalls we found in safe as part of our assessment.

People, relatives and staff were positive about how the service was run and the management team.

The team worked with external agencies and partners to help ensure people received good care. The management team shared their vision for the service they wanted to provide and staff were clear on expectations to achieve this.