Compton Manor

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always protected from avoidable harm and systems were not consistently effective. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.

This meant we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes, promoted a good quality of life and was based on the best available evidence.
At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating remained good. This meant people receive care and support that consistently achieved effective outcomes.

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 were not always supported to experience care that consistently reflected their preferences, independence and choices.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care and supported learning. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant leadership and governance systems were not consistently effective in assuring high-quality care or driving improvement. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance.
While we found significant shortfalls in senior leadership, governance and culture, we also found the registered manager maintained day-to-day oversight of the service and staff described positive support at service level. People and relatives generally gave positive feedback about staff, and we observed kind, respectful care. This meant the impact of the governance shortfalls had not resulted in consistently poor experiences for people, although significant improvement was required.