Lound Hall

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff understood the principles of safeguarding and how to raise concerns if there was a need to. Appropriate referrals were made where concerns had been raised and staff and management worked together to ensure people were kept safe and to minimise further risk.

People’s risks were identified and managed appropriately. People and relatives were involved in care planning to ensure care plans were person-centred. Care plans and risk assessments contained detailed information to guide staff on how to support people safely; these were regularly reviewed.

Staff were recruited safely. Records showed pre-employment checks and a Disclosure Barring Service (DBS) check were undertaken prior to staff starting employment. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people using the service. There were systems in place which the registered manager used to regularly review staffing levels to ensure the needs of people using the service were met. Staff received appropriate training which ensured they had the right knowledge and skills to support people safely. Recent de-escalation training was completed by staff enabling staff to support people safely with specific needs.

People's needs and choices were assessed. We saw detailed assessments including nationally recognised tools to assess risk. This meant staff had detailed information to support people, which meant people’s care and treatment were effective in line with best practice standards. Assessments were reviewed regularly, and care plans were kept up to date.

People had their capacity to make decisions assessed and this was reviewed regularly in line with the Mental Capacity Act. We found that management and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act.

There were processes in place to inform people about their rights in relation to consent and capacity. People were involved in their care planning and guidance and training was provided for staff regarding consent to care.

People’s individual preferences and wishes were understood and respected by staff and people were supported in a kind and caring way. Staff promoted people’s independence and people had choice and control to make decisions about how they wished to be supported. People’s family and friends were able to visit people with no restrictions.

Care plans included specific guidance for staff to follow on responding to people’s immediate needs. Staff knew people well which meant people’s individual needs were met promptly in a person-centred way.

People’s care plans were written in a person-centred way and included people’s holistic needs. People’s preferences and wishes were met and staff were responsive to people’s needs in a timely manner. People were involved in planning and making decisions about their care and treatment this meant care was centred around people and their specific needs. People were observed receiving person-centred care, people were treated with dignity and respect.

Management and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and there was an effective governance process and system in place. The registered manager had clear oversight of the service and was able to promote good person-centred care. The registered manager had ensured statutory notifications were consistently submitted to stakeholders as required. There were quality assurances processes in place and any feedback given was acted upon. The management team were experienced, capable which provided a well-led service.