Levitt Mill

We assessed all quality statements for this key question. Our rating for this question remains Good.

People felt safe living at Levitt Mill. People and their relatives made positive comments about the staff team. Staff understood their responsibilities to raise any concerns about people’s care and were confident to raise concerns with the management team should they need to. Staff understood people’s risks and helped people to manage them effectively, without overly restricting their freedom. The service worked with people to plan for when they experienced any periods of distress using a positive behaviour support (PBS) approach. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and there were systems in place to monitor the safety and cleanliness of the home. There were enough suitably recruited and trained staff to support people to enjoy full and rewarding lives. People were supported to move safely into the service, having been assessed before admission.

The provider was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS).

We assessed 2 quality statements for this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was Good. Our rating for this key question remains Good.

People’s needs and preferences were assessed, and care and support was delivered in line with current standards. People had comprehensive care plans which detailed their strengths and needs and promoted their dignity and independence. People’s communication needs were assessed, recorded and planned for.

People were asked for their consent before care and support was provided, and where necessary people’s capacity to make decisions about their care was assessed and recorded. Staff interacted with people, appropriately and according to their needs. This supported people to have choice and control over, and to make decisions about how they lived their lives. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, the decision-making process was clearly recorded. There were systems in place to monitor people’s individual health and wellbeing and people were referred to other professionals and services when needed.

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was Good. Our rating for this key question remains Good.

People reacted positively to the support they received from staff. For instance, one person described staff as, “Kind.” People's privacy, dignity and independence were maintained by staff who were caring and respectful. People were supported to remain as independent as possible and we saw staff supported them in a dignified way. People enjoyed a range of activities and events and had opportunities to get out in the community. People were encouraged and supported to celebrate occasions that were important to them and were able to receive visitors without undue restrictions. People were involved in decisions about their car, and their care plans showed how they wished to be supported.

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was Good. Our rating for this key question remains Good.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care, so their care plans showed what was important to them. People’s equality and human rights were protected, people were supported by staff who helped them overcome barriers to care and receive good outcomes. The management team were aware of people who were likely to experience inequality and actively listened to make sure people’s care was tailored address this. People were supported as individuals, in line with their needs and preferences. This included support to follow their interests and to take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant to them.

We assessed all quality statements for this key question. Our rating for this key question has changed from Requires Improvement to Good.

The provider had clear governance systems and processes, which supported the safe delivery of care and helped drive improvement. The registered manager and general manager were keen to provide the best possible service to people. They worked within an experienced and committed management team, addressing concerns and mistakes in an honest and proactive way. People and staff spoke positively about the management team, who promoted a positive, caring culture. The team worked collaboratively with people using the service, those close to them, and other professionals. There was a clear management structure and effective systems of accountability. The provider had effective systems and processes to investigate and learn from incidents and concerns.