George Beal 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.

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them. Care and risk management plans were in place which included guidance for staff to support people when they became distressed. There were enough staff to support people safely and safe recruitment practices were followed.Risks to the environment were swiftly addressed and the service was well maintained.

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.

People’s needs, preferences and choices were assessed prior to them receiving support and treatment. The provider carried out a comprehensive assessment with people and their relatives to ensure they could meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

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.

Staff supported people to make choices and to keep the skills they had, to remain as independent as possible. Choice was communicated to people in a way they could understand, so they could make their own decisions.

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.

The service encouraged feedback and involvement from people and their relatives to improve care outcomes. Feedback from people was sought on a regular basis to drive continuous improvement.

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 changed to Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The management and staff team demonstrated an open, honest and transparent culture, and all staff were confident their voices would be heard. There were robust governance arrangements and staff understood their role and responsibilities. The management and staff teams worked in partnership with key organisations to support people's care provision. There were processes in place to ensure that learning happened when things went wrong, and best practice guidance was sought and shared.