Scodef Care

Although care was often delivered effectively,the safety and governance of the service required improvement.Care plans and risk assessments were frequently incomplete,contradictory or missing. This meant staff did not always have reliable written guidance on how to support people safely with mobility, nutrition,continence or clinical procedures. These shortfalls placed people at avoidable risk of harm.Recruitment systems were also not fully robust, with gaps and inconsistencies in staff files.Despite this,people and staff said there were usually enough carers available,and medicines were managed safely where the service had responsibility. We found breaches of legal regulations for safe care and treatment and good governance in relation to risk management,a lack of detailed care records and governance systems.

People generally told us they felt safe, well supported and treated with dignity. Staff were described as polite,friendly and attentive, and many people said regular carers knew them well. People said they could raise concerns and usually received a prompt response. Staff also supported meaningful activities and encouraged independence where possible. However,people’s experiences were not consistently positive.Some people described delays in care, communication difficulties with a small number of staff, and a lack of updated assessments or reviews.

The service supported people to achieve positive outcomes, and staff generally understood people’s day to day needs well. People were encouraged to stay active and maintain routines that mattered to them, and staff worked collaboratively with families and external professionals. Leadership was described by staff as approachable and supportive, and the culture was viewed as positive and inclusive. However, governance systems were not effective. Quality assurance processes did not reliably identify or address shortfalls in care planning, record accuracy or recruitment checks.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices,independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.Staff promoted caring, respectful relationships, and people were encouraged to make choices and express their preferences. However,inconsistent and unclear care documentation meant the provider could not always demonstrate that support for autistic people and people with a learning disability was consistently person centred, safe or aligned with best practice. This limited the provider’s ability to show it consistently met the principles of right support, right care and right culture.

Following the inspection, the provider began taking action to address shortfalls identified.We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection Continued improvement is required to ensure the service delivers safe, consistently well governed and personcentred care.