EveryDay

The service was not always safe and has been rated requires improvement. We found a breach of regulation relating to records. Risk assessments did not always reflect known risks or working practices, although we found no evidence that people were harmed, there was potential risk due to the lack of clear guidance. Records relating to recruitment, training and staff support were incomplete and did not always follow good practice. These needed to improve. We had mixed responses from staff about the support they received. People told us they felt safe and trusted the staff who supported them. Accidents and incidents were reviewed, and lessons learnt shared with staff. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to recognise abuse. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

The service was effective and has been rated good. People’s care was assessed and used to develop plans of care and risk assessments. Some improvement was required to ensure people’s care records were up to date and detailed enough. Staff planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them. Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways which maximised their independence, choice and control. The staff routinely checked people were satisfied with the service. The registered manager ensured people experienced positive outcomes from the support the service offered. Staff worked with local healthcare professionals and sought advice when required. Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated code of practice.

The service was caring and has been rated good. Staff knew how to treat people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were treated as individuals and were encouraged to be independent and have choice and control over their care. However, some care plans and risk assessments needed further information and improvement to reflect current needs. The provider had started a digital transformation programme to gain a better understanding around care plans and risk assessments. They had prioritised updating records around people's preferences and the tasks staff needed to complete with people.

The service was responsive and has been rated good. People received person centred care. However, care records were not always consistently detailed. Staff understood the health and care needs of people and responded well to involve external professionals when needed. People were supported to access care in ways that met their personal needs and preferences.

The service was not always well-led and has been rated requires improvement. We found a breach of regulation relating to records. Governance processes were in place, but these failed to identify and remedy the issues found at this assessment. Checks made on the service were not always robust. The service had consistent management who demonstrated caring values. However, some staff told us they had concerns about culture and did not always feel listened to. While people we spoke to said that they were happy with their care, our assessment found elements of the oversight of the service did not meet the expected standards. The provider was investing in new technologies to improve this but system were not yet fully impliemented. Improvements were being made in-line with a organisational risk assessment.