Care Promise Limited

We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the safe key question and found some areas of good practice and some areas that required improvement. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. However, further improvements were identified when assessing risk and ensuring staff were trained in all health conditions people experienced.

People told us they received safe care and support. People told us staff supported them to understand risks and respected their choices and decisions.

Relatives told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the designated amount of time, they said staff telephoned them to let them know if they were going to be delayed.

Staff told us how they followed safe infection prevention control practices and administered medicines safely.

Staff told us about people’s health conditions. However, some risks to people from their health condition were not always risk assessed and staff had not received training in some health conditions experienced by people.

We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the effective key question and found some areas of good practice and some areas that required improvement. The scores based on the rating from the last inspection, was good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and was consistent.

Care plans were in place for each person, although these at times required updating. Staff knew people well and could tell us about risks from their health conditions. However, risk assessments for people’s health conditions were not always in place.

Relatives told us people’s needs were regularly assessed and staff kept them informed of any changes in people’s health or wellbeing.

Staff told us they discussed people’s care regularly in team meetings or in 1:1 sessions with the registered manager.

The registered manager shared examples of where the provider had made positive improvements to people's health and wellbeing.

We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the well-led key question and found some areas of good practice and some areas that required improvement. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service management and leadership was consistent.

Staff told us they believed in the registered manager’s ability to lead and said the registered manager was approachable and supportive.

Quality auditing processes were taking place, although these audits had not always identified the discrepancies found during this assessment. The registered manager was new to this role and had taken steps to improving the quality monitoring of care documentation by recruiting additional senior staff. This was on-going at the time of this assessment.

Staff told us the provider treated them fairly and staff received equality, diversity and inclusion training.