Surrey Heights

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 'Good'. At this assessment the rating has changed to 'Inadequate'. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm. The service was in breach of 2 legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, people's medicines not always being managed and, safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment.

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 changed to ‘Requires Improvement’. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. The service was in breach of legal regulation relating to consent.

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 changed to ‘Requires Improvement’. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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 changed to ‘Requires Improvement’. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance and oversight at the service.