Chase House Limited

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment and safeguarding. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations. However, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance. Systems to identify, monitor and respond to risks, including safeguarding concerns, were not always effective.

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to consent. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. However, further work was required to ensure decisions and associated risks were always clearly documented in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to person-centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment; however, these were not consistently embedded and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. People did not always experience meaningful engagement and care was not always delivered in a personalised way.

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

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to person-centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment; however, these were not consistently embedded and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. Care plans were not always sufficiently personalised and people were not always meaningfully involved in decisions about their care and support.

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance. Improvements were found at this assessment; however, these were not consistently embedded and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. Governance systems had not always identified or addressed concerns relating to quality, safety and risk management.