IMPACT

Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. The risks associated with people’s care had not been consistently assessed and managed. Staff had not always been provided with the clear information and guidance required to mitigate risks and keep people safe. There was no record of any safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents or near-misses and so we were unable to assess the effectiveness of learning when things went wrong. Systems and procedures in relation to people’s medicines required improvement. Some staff lacked understanding in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing. However, people felt safe receiving care and confirmed their care calls were generally punctual and reliable. Staff were satisfied management informed them about risks and changes in these.

Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. People’s care records contained inaccurate and contradictory statements about their communication needs and abilities. Although staff received training and supervision, we identified concerns in relation to the regularity of supervision and the scope and effectiveness of the training provided. People’s care records did not demonstrate effective communication and collaboration with external teams and professionals involved in people’s care. Staff had not always been provided with clear information and guidance on their role in supporting people with long-term health conditions. People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were not fully understood or protected. People and their relatives confirmed they were involved in the initial assessment of their care needs and were able to readily contact management about any changes in these. They felt the care and support provided addressed what was important to them.

Our rating for this key question remains good. People spoke positively about the staff who supported them and staff described a caring approach towards their work. However, the language used in people’s care records to describe their needs and abilities was not always respectful or professional.

Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. The provider’s governance and quality assurance systems and processes had not enabled them to maintain effectiveness oversight of performance and any risks to the quality of people’s care. Audits and checks had not resulted in any identified areas for improvement or actions. Staff spoke positively about the management team, who they found approachable, helpful and supportive. They felt able to speak up about any concerns, and felt their voices were heard. Staff confirmed they were treated fairly and faced no form of discrimination.