Harry Sotnick House

People received their medicines as prescribed. Risks associated with people's needs and health conditions were effectively assessed, monitored and mitigated. Staff knew people well and understood how to support them safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had effective safeguarding systems in place.

Recruitment practices were safe and there were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Effective systems were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.

People were mostly 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 told us they had enough training to carry out their roles effectively and were well supported. The provider worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure joined up care and good outcomes for people. People were supported in a personalised way to eat and drink well.

People and relatives spoke positively about the care people received. People were supported by kind and caring staff, treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

People's needs were met in a personalised way. People had been supported to maintain relationships and to take part in activities that were enjoyable and meaningful for them. The provider used complaints to improve the quality of care. People received compassionate care at the end of their lives and were appropriately supported at this time.

The service had a positive person-centred culture. Although the provider had an open and honest approach, records needed improving to demonstrate how they met the duty of candour requirements. We have made a recommendation about this.

People, relatives and staff provided us with positive feedback about the management team and thought the home was well-led. They also told us they would recommend the home to others.