John Masefield House

Improvements had been made and evidence showed people were safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments and management plans were in place and reviewed regularly. Equipment was used appropriately to support people and was checked to ensure it was safe to use. People were positive of the improvements the provider had made to ensure equipment was available and maintained. People showed us some of the changes which included ceiling hoists and wheelchairs.

Staff told us they had better systems to guide them when supporting people during transitions. There were enough staff to support with these processes.

There were systems and processes for staff to follow and incidents and accidents were analysed. Improvements were made in response to learning from incidents. There were enough staff to support people’s needs and the service was fully recruited. Medicines were managed safely.

We were assured that the provider had effective systems and processes in place to prevent and control infections. They ensured infection outbreaks were effectively prevented or managed.

People received care that was based on their assessed individual needs. Records showed people and their relatives were involved in planning and regular reviewing of care. Improvements had been made and people had better access to other services.

We saw people had a pleasant dining experience which offered a variety of appetising homemade food choices available at times that suited people's preferences. The menu was overseen, and food prepared by a catering team who knew people’s needs very well. Staff supported people to maintain food and fluid intakes. Improvements had been made and people had access to hydration stations all over the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had a particularly good understanding of when the principles of the Mental Capacity Act should be applied.

People and relatives told us staff were caring. Staff did all they could to promote people’s independence and we saw examples of this. People received personalised care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences, and staff supported people and their relatives to be involved with decisions relating to their care. People's privacy and dignity was upheld through the approaches taken by staff as well as in relation to the care environment, as people each had access to their own bedrooms with ensuite bathroom facilities.

Improvements had been made and people received personalised care. The provider had invested in reviewing all people’s risks, allowing personalised planning of care. This allowed targeted personalised planning of care.

The provider complied with the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss.

The provider had policies and processes in place which enabled them to continuously seek feedback from people and used the outcomes to tailor their care, support and treatment.

Improvements had been made and the home was well led. There was a clear and effective management structure which aided the smooth running of the home. Staff were positive about management of the home and told us the provider and the new management team were supportive. Staff felt they were listened to and kept informed of improvement plans.

The provider had improved oversight of the service and effective quality assurance systems in place that they used to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff worked well with external social and health care professionals. Healthcare professionals and other stakeholders were positive about the effective collaboration with the service which resulted in better outcomes for people.

Improvements had been made and the provider’s systems allowed them to continuously learn and improve across the organisation. Action plans from governance processes were used to improve people’s outcomes both locally and further afield.

Whilst improvements had been made with quality assurance systems, we could not be sure of their full effectiveness as this is achieved over a longer period of time.