41 West Hill

Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had to managers. When concerns had been raised, managers reported these promptly to the relevant agencies and worked proactively with them, to make sure timely action was taken to safeguard people from further risk. The provider had plans to involve relatives in the review process. There were enough staff to support people safely. Staff received relevant training to meet the range of people’s needs at the service. Staff received support through supervision and staff meetings to support their continuous learning and improve their working practice. Managers made sure recruitment checks were undertaken on all staff to ensure staff were recruited safely. Safety risks to people were not always managed well. Managers assessed safety risks to people and were in the process of reviewing care plan documents. The provider and staff working at the service did not always follow Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles.

Improvements had been made to allow people to have a choice about what they wanted to eat and drink. Some improvements were made to ensuring people were encouraged and helped by staff to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain their independence. People’s families were free to visit them with no restrictions. Improvements had been made to encourage people to take part in a range of activities both at the service and in the community which helped support their independence, health, and well-being.

Improvements had been made to the governance, management, and accountability arrangements. Staff understood their role and responsibilities. Managers accounted for the actions, behaviours, and performance of staff. There were arrangements for the availability, integrity and confidentiality of data, records, and data management systems. Information was used to monitor and improve the quality of care. The systems to manage current and future performance and risks to the quality of the service did not always take a proportionate approach to managing risk that allowed new and innovative ideas to be tested within the service. Leaders did not always ensure relevant or mandatory quality frameworks, recognised standards, best practices were applied to improve equity in experience and outcomes for people using services and tackle known inequalities.