Connections Care Ltd

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

We saw risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care plans were in place to guide staff on the support people needed to remain safe. People received their medicines safely.

People and their relatives told us the service was safe. People benefitted from a safe service. Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of their responsibility to report any concerns. They felt they would be listened to by management and their concerns acted upon.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff, were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. There were enough staff with the correct skill mix to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that meets their needs.

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 key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Assessments considered people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, to enable them to receive person centred care and support that had the best possible outcomes.

The service worked with other health and social care professionals to support people and provide consistency in care.

Staff told us they felt supported in their role. They told us they felt comfortable seeking support from management and there was good teamwork.

People were 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.

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

People and their relatives told us staff treated them with kindness and dignity, respecting their privacy. People felt confident that they could raise any concerns, and this would be appropriately responded to.

Staff knew and understood people well, including their preferences, wishes, personal histories and backgrounds. People were supported to have choice and control over their care and to make decisions about their care, support and wellbeing.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Care plans reflected people’s care and support needs. They were personalised and contained information on how people wished to receive their care and support. Care plans were reviewed regularly, and changes recorded where required.

People were supported to live healthier lives and had choice and control over the care they received. People and their representatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support.

People received information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs.

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 key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed, with appropriate governance systems in place. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Managers demonstrated a positive, compassionate and listening culture. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from management and office staff.

People and those important to them had opportunities to feedback their views about the management and quality of service they received.

The service worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to meet people’s needs. Records we viewed evidenced appropriate healthcare involvement in planning people’s care and support.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify any actions required to make improvements. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to identify any lessons to be learned or if changes to a person’s care was required. As required by their registration the registered manager had submitted the necessary notifications to CQC following significant events at the service.