The Beach

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 requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of regulations in relation to staff training and oversight at the service. Not all staff had completed up to date training for the administration of medicines. Audits had failed to identify staff medicine administration competency checks were overdue. There were enough staff to support people according to their needs and preferences. However, some staff were working excessive hours. There was no clear process for reviewing restrictive practices.

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 consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Managers made transition plans when people moved between services. They worked with other professionals to help ensure care was consistent and information shared appropriately. When required, concerns about people’s health and well-being were raised with other agencies. Staff encouraged people to live a healthy lifestyle, even when people were resistant to this.

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 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 the regulations in relation to governance at the service. Audits had failed to identify shortfalls found at the inspection. Systems did not always highlight gaps in staff competency checks.