Inglefield Nursing & Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People told us they felt safe and staff understood safeguarding processes and how to raise concerns. However, the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Risk management systems were not consistently effective, the environment was not always safe, and medicines were not always managed in line with best practice. These shortfalls reduced assurance that risks were consistently identified, monitored, and mitigated.

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 in breach of regulation in relation to good governance. People received care that met their needs, and staff worked effectively with health professionals to support wellbeing and independence. However, inconsistencies were identified in consent to care, care planning and the use of monitoring tools, staff knowledge and day-to-day practice supported effective care delivery.

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 and relatives consistently described staff as caring, compassionate, and respectful. Observations confirmed staff interacted positively with people, respected privacy, and supported individual preferences.

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 were supported to make choices, maintain independence, and take part in activities. Some relatives reported delays in access and communication during busy periods; however, staff generally responded appropriately to people’s needs and concerns.

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the 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 was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. While leaders were supportive and committed to improvement, governance systems were not always effective. Shortfalls in oversight of risk management, medicines, consent, monitoring tools, care planning, and learning from incidents reduced assurance that quality and safety were consistently managed and sustained.