OFFICE

People were not always supported by staff of their preferred gender to meet their values and support a sense of dignity. Agency staff were not always aware of people's specific needs.

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.

However, whilst regular staff promoted independence and considered capacity and consent, the systems in place at the service did not always enable staff to provide the right support.

Staff received an induction, mandatory training, and spot checks to support their development. Staff did not receive specialist training in supporting people with a learning disability and or autistic people. Some training was out of date.

Right Care: Whilst staff were described as being friendly, kind and compassionate, the service was not consistently person-centred due to provider shortfalls in oversight and monitoring.

Safeguarding measures were inconsistent, which meant people were at increased risk of harm or not receiving the right care. People told us they did not have access to their up-to-date care plan, or involvement

in regular reviews.

Equality and diversity characteristics were considered as part of the care planning process.

People told us staff respected their privacy and independence.

Right Culture: The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders did not ensure all people using the service could lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.

Limited action had been taken since the last inspection to drive improvement at the service. Registered persons and the management team were not responsive to people raising concerns, or to professional feedback.

There was a poor understanding of legal and regulatory requirements. Systems for oversight and governance were absent, poorly developed, incomplete, or ineffective.

Whilst the management team completed care visits to people in their own homes, and were described as approachable, there was no robust strategic oversight for the service in place.