Osborne 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

We assessed all quality statements within the key question of Safe. The service had a system for recording and reporting safeguarding. The manager shared learning with staff from incidents and was working to reduce falls people had. Staff were recruited, inducted and trained to support people’s individual needs. Regular testing of equipment took place. There were gaps in some of the mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions completed. The quality of some risk assessments was variable and there were some gaps in the risk assessments we viewed. The manager started to address some of these areas during the assessment process.

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 good.

We assessed all quality statements within Well Led. The service had quality assurance and monitoring systems however, they were not always consistent in identifying shortfalls at the service. We found gaps in some assessments. Relatives told us the home was well run. Staff said they enjoyed their work and felt supported by management. Feedback from professionals highlighted collaborative working between the service and professionals.