CareTech Community Services Limited - 82 Chaucer Road

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 inspection the rating has remained 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 a legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment at this inspection. The provider did not always ensure known issues with the environment were made safe in a timely manner. The service was not always kept clean and free from IPC concerns. People’s risk assessments and care plans were not always specific to people’s needs or updated in a timely manner to reflect their current needs. Some aspects of how people were supported with medicines was not safe. However, staff were trained and knew how to notice and report safeguarding concerns. There were enough staff to support people with all their support needs and staff were recruited safely.

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 inspection we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained Requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

People’s care plans were not always updated in a timely fashion when their needs changed. It was not always clear how people were being supported in line with best practice or to achieve their desired outcomes. However, the staff team worked well together, and people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with compassion. People and relatives were happy with their support. Staff supported people to be independent and to make choices about their day to day support.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained Requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of a legal regulation in relation to person-centred care at this inspection. People’s care plans were not always personalised and in some cases were not updated to be in line with their current support needs. People were not being supported to effectively feed back about their care and support. Staff were not trained in supporting people with different communication need such as using signing. It was unclear how people were being supported to discuss and follow their known interests and past times. However, staff knew people as individuals and knew what their preferences were. People were supported to access other services if they needed support from other professionals.

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 inspection we rated this Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation governance at the service at this inspection. Governance measures and audits were not effective in identifying where improvements to the service could be made. The provider was not always promoting a positive culture as they were not dealing with known environmental issues at the service, showing a lack of respect for people’s home. Learning and improvement at the service was not always happening, and some issues at this inspection were present at our last inspection. However, the registered manager was compassionate and worked well with the staff team. Staff felt well supported in their job roles. The registered manager started implementing improvements based on our feedback at this inspection.