280-282 Wells Road

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained as requires improvement. Whilst we found people were safe and people’s physical needs were met, we found staffing levels were not always sufficient to ensure people’s social needs were fulfilled. This was a breach in legal regulation in relation to staffing.

However, people told us they had good relationships with the staff. Care plans were in place to support people to have a good day, and strategies were in place to prevent distress. Reactive strategies were available and followed by staff, so they consistently supported people when they became distressed. Sexual safety was considered, and people’s sexual needs were considered and supported.

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Staff had undertaken training in how to support autistic people and how to support people with a learning disability. Staff’s skills and competency had been assessed to ensure they understood the individual needs and care plans of people they supported and were able to meet them. People’s communication needs were clearly documented, and people felt staff understood how to communicate with them.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. People told us they felt listened to, their feelings were respected, and staff were mindful of their privacy. We observed interactions between staff and people who use the service and saw these relationships were caring and compassionate, enabling staff to anticipate and meet people’s needs quickly and in ways that reduced and mitigated people’s discomfort and distress.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. However, staff were not always available to support people with activities of their choice. People and those close to them were supported to understand and raise concerns or make complaints when this was needed.

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant we identified some shortfalls with the governance of the service. Not all areas of improvement identified at the previous inspection had been rectified. The model of care was not always in line with current best practice guidance right support, right care, right culture. Although, leaders worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy their lives, staff were not always available to people’s social needs and engage in meaningful activities. This was a continued breach in legal regulation in relation to good governance.