Burger Court

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating remains unchanged, and we identified breaches of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. We found aspects of the service were not always safe. Risks to people's health and welfare were not always assessed and managed safely or consistently. People’s records also contained inaccurate information, both of which placed people at risk of harm or injury. Medicines were not always managed safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse, but inconsistencies in people’s records meant risks to people’s safety could be compromised. We received mixed feedback from people about how the service responded to their concerns, but there had been a notable improvement since the new manager joined the service. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs, who had been recruited safely. The environment was safe and homely, but required deep cleaning in some areas.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating remains unchanged. People's needs were not always assessed, or reviewed, in a timely manner. The monitoring of people’s outcomes through care plans and review of assessments was not fully effective, as information was not always accurate. People’s consent to their care was not always considered or clearly recorded. Systems were in place to make sure people were supported effectively throughout their stay at the service and during any transition of care. People were supported to live healthier lives and spoke positively of the support they received from staff.

At our last inspection this key question was rated requires improvement. At this assessment, the provider had improved, and this key question is now rated good. People were treated with kindness and compassion, by caring staff who knew them well. People were supported to have independence and had choice and control over their daily lives. Staff responded to people’s needs in a timely way. People’s care records were not entirely personalised, as they did not always include information about people’s communication needs, or their individual needs and preferences.

At our last inspection this key question was rated requires improvement. At this assessment, the provider had improved, and this key question is now rated good. Staff and leaders made sure people were supported to receive coordinated and appropriate care. Systems and processes were in place, but they did not always allow for a person-centred approach to people’s care. Not everyone we spoke to at the service felt involved in their care planning. However, people spoke positively of the way staff and the manager listened to and engaged them. People were supported to access education and recreational opportunities, in line with their preferences. People were supported to plan for the future, including moving on from the service to more independent living.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating remains unchanged, and we identified a breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Systems for auditing the safety and quality in the service were in place but were not always effective in addressing all the issues we identified. The newly appointed manager understood where areas of improvement were required in the service but needed support from the provider to address this in a timely manner. Staff told us they felt listened to by the new manager, who understood the service and the people living there well. Systems and processes were in place to support and promote workforce equality, diversity and inclusion within the service.