Mulberry House

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm.There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The service was in breach of legal regulations related to safeguarding, safe care and staffing. Safeguarding concerns were not always identified and reported. Accident and incident forms were not always completed. Care plans did not always contain enough information on managing risks. Medicines were not always managed safely. Environmental safety and infection prevention and control risks had not always been managed. Staff were not always well supported.

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. Staff were not always well supported. However, people were cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to staffing. Staff were not always well supported following incidents and accidents.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the service 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 to governance. The provider had not always ensured their systems were effective or ensured oversight of quality, safety and management of risks.