Pogles Wood

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. The provider had ensured the premises were safe while managing to maintain a homely setting. The premises were very clean, and we observed staff using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when delivering care to the person. There was a separate laundry room with separate washing machine for the person. We also saw the staff positioned the person away from items they could pick up that may cause them harm, also, most items such as decorative items were positioned where the person could not reach them for their safety. Regular checks of the fire alarm system and water hygiene checks took place. Staff understood their roles and responsibility around safeguarding and reporting accidents and incidents. The registered manager analysed incidents and shared learning to minimise reoccurrences. Medicines were, in the main, safely managed, however the provider has made some changes such as introducing specific PRN protocols and labelling medicines with disposal dates following our assessment. Medicines administration records were completed clearly and contained all required information.

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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

In part, we assessed Pogles Wood due to concerns which were raised following an application to add an additional person to the service. Discussions with the registered manager did not always indicate good governance or an awareness of good practice guidance and requirements around learning disability and autism services. During our assessment we found service provision to be in line with right support, right care right culture, however the registered manager had not previously been familiar with the guidance. We found information in records such as a pain risk assessment that needed to be separated into a PRN protocol. This meant some areas we had concerns about prior to assessment had been completed however, they were not necessarily recorded where they should be. Staff were happy with the management of the service, and the owners displayed its values in their leadership. There was an open and honest culture and there was a whistleblowing policy. Neither staff nor the registered manager had any doubts that poor practice would not be immediately addressed. The provider had ensured positive working relationships had been formed with healthcare professionals involved in the care of the person. This ensured a seamless service could be delivered to them.