Barlavington Manor

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 changed to 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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment. People did not always receive safe support in line with professional advice and good practice guidance. Risks were not always identified and mitigated. Medicines were not always managed safely.

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 good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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 changed to 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 governance at the service. Governance processes were not effective in identifying some service shortfalls. There was not an adequate process for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. Lessons were not always learnt to drive service improvements.