Applewood Support Limited

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. Potential risks of harm were not always identified, assessed or mitigated. This meant staff did not always have important information to refer to when needed. There were sufficient staff to undertake care calls to people. Generally, staff were recruited safely and received an induction and training. Staff followed infection prevention and control measures and supported people with their prescribed medicines.

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. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Staff worked well in teams and met people’s care task needs. People were supported to live healthier lives. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent for personal care.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. There was a lack of consistent robust managerial oversight of risk management, safety and quality of the service provided. The provider had some systems and processes in place to check the safety and quality of the service, but these did not always have the desired outcome of identifying where improvements were needed.