Our House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Staff protected people from abuse and ensured transfers of care were safe.

The impact of people’s actions on others had reduced and staff understood how to support people when anxious or upset. However, when incidents occurred between people this had not been fully documented and investigated to identify areas of learning.

The environment of the service had improved, and the manager’s office had been relocated making it easier for people using the service to access. Electrical faults had been addressed, and damaged carpets and fire doors repaired.

Staffing level at weekends continued to restrict people’s access to the community.

Staff were now recruited safely and training, identified as necessary by the provider, had been completed.

Medicine Administration Records had been fully completed. However, medicines files did not include protocols in relation to the use of ‘as required’ medications.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and staffing.

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

There were systems to assess people’s needs before they moved in and care plans were developed to enable staff to provide individualised care. People’s independence was encouraged and staff worked with health professionals to ensure people’s needs were met.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing support and the registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

There was a caring culture in the service. Where staff and the registered manager focused on supporting people’s independence and valued their achievements.

Feedback from people and relatives was valued and staff told us they were well supported.

Although some aspects of governance had improved systems were not yet sufficiently robust and further improvements were required.

Although improvements had been made the service remained in breach of regulations in relation to governance at the service.