Bognor Regis

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, 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. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and protecting people from avoidable harm.

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way and protecting people from avoidable harm.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for, or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way and governance of the service.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way and governance of the service.

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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in service leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to the governance of the service.