Catchpole Court

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.
The provider was in breach of legal requirements in relation to safe care and treatment and medicines management.

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 newly registered 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 provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service. We found improvement was needed to ensure effective processes and systems in place to assess and monitor the care being provided. Systems to audit the quality of care, safety including the management of medicines were not always effective in identifying and addressing areas of concerns we identified at this assessment.