Deneside Court

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 changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People and relatives told us they felt Deneside Court was a safe place to live. When potential safeguarding incidents did occur, they were recorded and investigated. Medicines were given safely and risks related to care delivery were considered and mitigated. People and staff told us there were enough staff on duty to support their care needs. Whilst staff received supervision, this was not always consistently provided and there was a known lack of annual appraisals.

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

People and most relatives told us they were involved in care planning and were happy with the care provided. Care records provided detailed information for staff to follow and were reviewed regularly. It was not always clear how people and relatives had contributed to these reviews. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to support them to achieve positive outcomes. Staff were aware of how best to gain informed consent. Best interests decisions had been taken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, although some minor issues of restriction, such as wheelchair lap belts had not been considered.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People and relatives felt the care provided was kind and considerate, and staff were supportive and helpful. People were supported to engage in a range of activities, personal to their needs, although some relatives thought these could be improved. informed consent. Best interests decisions had been taken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, although some minor issues of restriction, such as wheelchair lap belts had not been considered.

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People were supported to be as independent as possible and progress and develop their life skills. The provider valued equality and diversity for people living at the service and through support to the workforce. People and relatives could raise individual matters with senior staff and felt these were addressed. There were limited formal processes to gain the views of people and relatives.

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

The provider had in place a range of processes to maintain the effective running of the service. Staff had mixed views on the management of the service. Some felt management were approachable, whilst others reflected managers were not always proactive in dealing with matters. Relatives and professionals were positive about the manager and the improvements they had made, since taking up post. However, the manager had been in post since May 2024 and had still not commenced the formal registration process. People and staff felt the manager was approachable. Some checks and audits were undertaken, although issues identified were not always consistently followed up. Professionals told us that communication with the service was good and all staff responded to concerns and guidance.