Fryers House - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

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 requires improvement. 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.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and staff recruitment.

At this assessment, we found the provider had not made sufficient improvements in relation to recruitment and remained in breach of the legal regulation relating to employing fit and proper staff. Safer recruitment processes were not consistently robust, which meant the provider could not always be assured staff were suitable to work with people.

The provider had made some improvements in relation to safe care and treatment; however, these improvements did not extend to medicines management. Ongoing shortfalls in the safe management of medicines meant risks were not fully mitigated. As a result, the provider remained in breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment.

The provider had previously been in breach of regulations relating to safeguarding and staffing. At this assessment, we found sufficient improvements in these areas, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

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 previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent. Enough improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. ​

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Enough improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 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 provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. At this assessment, we found the provider had not made sufficient improvements in relation to governance and remained in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance.