Flamelily Independent Living

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

People’s risks records were not always robust enough to inform staff how to keep people safe. People received their routine planned medicines as prescribed. Staff received training but not all competencies were in place to ensure they were safe to conduct their role. Incidents were reported appropriately. Staff felt supported and there were enough staff to support people safely. Staff were aware of infection control guidelines and conducted safe care in people’s homes.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last ratings inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. People did not always receive person-centred care according to their wishes. Communication needed to be more robust, for example how care is to be delivered and the time of calls. We were concerned that staff had not considered people’s mental capacity when planning their care. Complaints were not always responded to in a timely manner and people did not always feel listened too. People did not always feel they had a choice or preference in who delivered their care. The provider was meeting people’s communication needs. Staff told us how they treated people equally and without discrimination. People at end of their live were treated with dignity and their wishes were respected.

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 ratings inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant there were shortfalls in service leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not always assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. Governance procedures were not always effective. The provider had not identified all the quality or risk concerns we found. This meant prompt action had not been taken to address shortfalls. The provider had appropriate policies in place. Most staff felt supported by management and were aware of the values of the service. Management was keen to learn and make improvements to the service