Handford House Care Home

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 inadequate. We found breaches of regulation in relation to staffing and safe care and treatment. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was no longer in breach of regulation in staffing and safe care and treatment. Improvements had been made in this key question and some were ongoing, they needed to be embedded in practice and sustained due to the concerns we had identified at our last assessment.

Improvements had been made in staffing, including training and support. The local authority had previously suspended placing people in the service until improvements had been made, they had now made the decision with the provider to accommodate people within the service. The provider needed to ensure safe staffing levels as the numbers of people living in the service increased.

Ongoing improvements were being made in how risks were being assessed, mitigated and learned from to reduce the risks of avoidable harm. Safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately and lessons learned. Infection control processes had been improved, these improvements needed to be maintained.

People received their medicines when they needed them and ongoing monitoring supported the management team to identify shortfalls and address them.

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 good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At our last assessment we found a breach relating to consent, at this assessment we found the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation. These improvements needed to be embedded and sustained in practice. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs were being assessed and they were supported to access other services, such as health care services, where required. People were supported to maintain healthy lives and their dietary and hydration needs were being assessed.

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 good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were supported in a person-centred way. At this assessment we found the provider was no longer in breach of regulation. Improvements had been made in people’s care plans which were now person centred and people and relatives were being consulted about the care provided and planned for.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Whilst staff respected people’s privacy, further work was needed to reduce the risk of other people entering people’s bedrooms. Ongoing work was being done to improve the laundry service to ensure people received and wore their own clothing.

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 good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were supported in a person-centred way. At this assessment we found the provider was no longer in breach of regulation. Improvements had been made and were ongoing in people’s care plans which were now person centred. People were receiving person centred care where they were now being consulted about the care and support they received and how it was planned for.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment this key question was rated inadequate. 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.

At our last assessment we found the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. We found there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership, in addition the rating overall was inadequate with multiple breaches of regulation. At this assessment we found the provider was no longer in breach of regulation and ongoing improvements were being made. However, these needed to be embedded in practice and sustained.

There had been a change in management since our last assessment and we received feedback that improvements were being made in the governance of the service.