Scholars Mews Care Home

Safeguarding systems and processes had improved. Records showed potential safeguarding incidents had been reported, recorded and investigated in a timely way. Safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority where necessary. Staff knew how to identify potential indicators of abuse and what action to take. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reported. Lessons were learnt to prevent these incidents from happening again. Risks within the environment and to people's health and wellbeing were now identified, monitored and managed safely. Medicines were managed safely. There were now enough suitably skilled and competent staff who had received sufficient training. Infection prevention and control processes were managed well. Improvements were needed to ensure people experienced safe systems, pathways and transitions between services. Important information about people was not always shared with healthcare professionals if people were admitted to hospital which could put people at risk of harm.

People's needs and preferences were assessed before they moved into the home. This ensured the provider could meet their health and social well-being needs. Improvements had been made to this process since our last inspection and the Operations Director described how the home was now admitting new residents very gradually to ensure a safe transition.

Referrals were made to specialist healthcare professionals when required. People had access to a GP who would review any emerging healthcare needs regularly. Some further improvements were required in how staff worked effectively across teams with other healthcare professionals. Effective monitoring of people's health after changes were made by healthcare professionals was not always always clear to enable an effective review.

Staff understood the importance of seeking people's consent before providing care during their day to day interactions with people. However, where staff had taken clinical photographs of people's wounds or injuries, records did not show their consent had been always been sought. Records also required further information to show people's capacity to make decisions had been fully assessed.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and people spoke positively about the care they received in their day to day interactions with staff. Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals. People appeared comfortable and relaxed in the presence of staff. People generally felt they were able to continue living their life as they wished to. Staff recognised the importance of people having choice and control over their lives. Staff understood the value of encouraging people to maintain their independence. However, people's dignity was not always considered when taking clinical photographs of wounds.

Staff told us they told us they were supported in their role and felt valued. Staff had regular opportunities through team meetings to raise any concerns they had and felt listened to by senior managers.

Staff responded to people's individual needs and supported people in a person centred way. Staff now encouraged people to increase their emotional, social and physical well-being. A variety of activities took place which were in line with people's interests. Staff communicated with people in a way they could understand. Although people felt listened to in their day-to-day care interactions, people and relatives did not always feel involved in reviewing their overall plan of care. People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns or issues and were confident they would be responded to. People told us they had equal access to care and treatment and they had not experienced any discrimination. Further improvements were required to support people in planning for the future.

There was an improved culture within the home. Senior representatives from the provider group, including the quality assurance team, carried out regular visits to check the quality of care provided to people. Systems and processes had improved. Records showed regular audits and checks took place which assessed and improved the quality of care provided. However, the quality assurance process had not identified some of the shortfalls identified during our assessment such as a lack of information being shared when people moved between services, consent and dignity issues related to the taking of clinical photography. Following our feedback, the provider responded to make the required improvements.

Staff were confident to speak up and report any concerns senior management. The provider’s policies supported workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. There was no registered manager in place at the time of our assessment, but the Regional Director who was in day to day management of the home had applied to become registered with us, CQC.