TheSignLife Project

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. Throughout the assessment process, it was identified that risks associated with service users’ care and support were not consistently identified, assessed, or mitigated. Medication management and documentation were insufficient to reduce the potential risk of harm to people using the service. Recruitment systems were also found to be neither robust nor effective. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and staffing.

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. Care plans lacked person-centred detail and did not consistently reflect individuals’ preferences, cultural or religious needs, or their own voice. Goals were present but lacked clarity on progress, review, or personal relevance. This oversight to deliver person-centred care risks undermining individuals’ autonomy, dignity, and wellbeing. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 systems and processes in place to assess, monitor, and mitigate risks and make improvements were ineffective. Care plans and risk assessments lacked consistency, and training or quality assurance processes were not robust or effectively followed. As a result, the service failed to identify the concerns highlighted during the assessment. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance at the service.