St James House

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments and had been supported to apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) for restrictions made to keep them safe.

Some risks to people had not been safely managed at the time of our inspection. Fire and safety risks needed addressing. Some parts of the building were not clean or well maintained.

Risks to one person living with a health condition that required monitoring of fluid levels had not been safely managed.

People did not always receive person centred support. Some people's activities did not reflect their interests and there was a lack of goals and aspirations in people's care plans.

Governance systems had not always been effective in highlighting and putting right issues identified at this inspection. Some aspects of the culture of the service were not positive, as one person had been moved from the service at short notice without involving partner agencies.

Right support: The model of care and setting did not always maximise people's choice, control and independence. People were not fully considered and involved in the planning of their care and some choices were at times restricted. St James House was located on site with another care home. The model of the service does not reflect the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance

Right care: Care was not always person-centred and did not always promote people's dignity. People did not always

have access to meaningful and person-centred activities.

Right culture: Some values and attitudes of leaders and care staff did not always ensure people using services led confident, inclusive and empowered lives.