Badminton Place

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 remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People told us they felt safe living at the service and staff were confident about what actions they should take if they were concerned about a person. Staff knew people well and understood the risks they might face. Care plans provided guidance to staff about how best to support people safely. When gaps were found in care records, these were updated promptly.

There was a culture of openness and learning to keep people safe. Incidents and accidents were investigated, although we found some had not been recorded. This was addressed by the management team.

At the time of our assessment, there were enough staff to safely support people, and they received training and supervision to ensure they were competent and skilled in their roles. Concerns had been raised about staffing and performance in the earlier part of the year, but we were assured that poor performance was managed appropriately, and the management team had made significant changes to improve the service and people’s experience.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were met effectively. Other professionals supported staff to ensure people received the support they needed. The environment was very pleasant, clean and well maintained.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff delivered person centred care and records supported them to do this. Records overall were up to date and care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and kept them at the heart of what they did. They worked with people, relatives and other professionals to meet individual’s diverse health and care needs. People were encouraged to participate in a wide range of activities. People were sensitively supported to make informed choices about their care and plan for their future care needs.

People and relatives were able to give feedback in different ways. Most told us they were confident that, if they complained, their concerns would be taken seriously, and the senior team would take action as necessary.

The management team monitored aspects of care delivery such as care records, medicines management and health and safety compliance as well as staff performance to ensure this was consistent and of a high standard.

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 outstanding. 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.

Before this assessment, CQC received concerns that some staff did not support the provider’s vision or values or prioritise high quality, compassionate care. There had been several management changes which were unsettling for many. We found the management team who had been in place for around 6 months had addressed any signs of poor culture and made changes and improvements to ensure people received a safe, high-quality service.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the changes and new management team. Managers had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively. They were open and honest during this assessment and led by example.

The management team had a good understanding of how to make improvements and were committed to developing the service. They were responsive to feedback and suggestions we made during our visit. The service had systems and processes to provide oversight and leadership and to continue monitoring and improving the service. The use of recognised quality standards and an involvement in research and development projects helped to ensure people received a high-quality service.