Patron 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At the last inspection, we found safe care and treatment was not always provided because medicines were not safely managed and people, relatives, staff and visitors were not always protected from the risk of infection. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations, however there were still some shortfalls. Although we found issues which did not meet expected standards, we saw evidence that improved processes and records were in place, shortfalls were rectified immediately after our visit and training and learning was shared with staff. Other areas of good practice were observed, such as effective medicines protocols, safe storage of medicines and administration methods which met people’s needs. Changes had been made to monitor and improve standards of cleaning and hygiene in the service.

At the last inspection, we also found people’s needs were not always met by sufficient staff. At this inspection we found the provider was no longer in breach of regulations. However, care staff were responsible for cleaning, housekeeping and activities, and these competing demands continued to have a negative impact on standards.

Staff received regular supervision and training, and they were positive about the support they received from the new management team. Relatives gave positive feedback about the staff team and managers.

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.

At the last inspection, we found good governance was not always effective. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations. The registered manager had improved the checks and systems in place, and these were consistently completed and shortfalls identified. Notifications were submitted to CQC as necessary. We received positive feedback about the new management team.