St Oggs

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 as 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 and staffing.

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 remained as requires improve. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service 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 service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 as requires improvement.  This meant the service 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 good governance.