Cassandra House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assuranceabout safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the way people’s medicines were managed, and to the provision of safe care and treatment.

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. The last time this was assessed we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. We did though identify some areas which could be more consistently applied.

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. The last time this was assessed 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.

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 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 continued breach of legal regulation in relation to governance and oversight of the service.