Penley View

The provider did not use safe recruitment procedures to employ staff. Therefore, there was a risk people could be supported by unsuitable staff putting them at increased risk of harm.

Staff supported people with their medicines in a way that promoted their independence. However, other aspects of medicine management such as record keeping, and checks needed improvement.

The service gave people care and support in a safe, well-furnished environment that met their sensory and physical needs. However, some aspects of premises safety such as cleaning records and practice needed some improvement.

Staff supported people to take part in activities. However, further improvements were needed to ensure people could pursue their interests in their local area with people who had shared interests and achieve their aspirations and goals.

People had a choice about their living environment and were able to personalise their rooms. The service and staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence over their own lives. Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful life.

Staff enabled people to access specialist health and social care support in the community. Staff supported people to play an active role in maintaining their own health and well-being.

Staff supported people to make decisions following best practice in decision-making. Staff communicated with people in ways that met their needs.

Right Care: Provider needed to review staff organisation and how staff's training needs and skills were managed in order to meet some people's specific needs.

The provider did not always ensure that actions were consistently taken to reduce assessed risks to people's personal safety. Not all staff had the right knowledge to encourage and enable people to take positive risks.

People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs.

Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

People could communicate with staff and understand information given to them because staff supported them consistently and understood their individual communication needs. Staff spoke to people politely giving them time to respond and express their wishes.

People's care, treatment and support plans reflected their range of needs and this promoted their well- being and enjoyment of life.

Right Culture: We found the provider did not ensure we were notified of reportable events within a reasonable time frame.

The provider did not always follow their quality assurance policy effectively so they could assess, monitor and mitigate any risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people using services, the service and others.

The provider did not consistently maintain accurate and complete records relating to person's care and service management.

The provider did not always follow and kept a copy of all the actions taken as required in the duty of candour regulation when a notifiable safety incident occurred.

Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive, supporting their aspirations to live a quality life of their choosing.

People and those important to them were involved in planning their care. Staff valued and acted upon people's views.

Staff turnover was stable, which supported people to receive more consistent care from staff who knew them well. People were supported by staff who understood their different range of needs or sensitivities.

The service enabled people and those important to them to work with staff to help improve the service. The home manager and staff were working together to ensure the risks of a closed culture were minimised so that people received support based on transparency, respect and positive culture in the service.