The Robert Atkinson Centre

At the lasted rated inspection this key question was rated as requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Recruitment practices were now meeting requirements. There were enough staff to deliver the care and ensured new care packages could be supported with adequate numbers of staff. A minimum of hour-long visits were provided. The registered manager worked closely with people to manage expectations around what could be achieve in the visit. Staff cooked a full meal from scratch, cleaned the house and provided support with personal care. The provider ensured care packages were flexible and built any additional domestic needs into longer visits. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and referrals were made as needed. Risks were assessed and action taken to mitigate any risks. The company the provider employed had completed a full review of the service and noted areas for improvement. The registered manager had ensured these improvements were made. People were supported to do the things that were important to them and manage any associated risks. The registered manager had established systems to identify safety events; they ensured these were investigated thoroughly and any lessons learnt were embedded in to practice. The registered manager actively promoted using information from lessons learnt to continuously enhance the service. They worked with people and partner organisations to maintain safe systems of care, which was based on openness and honesty. Medicine management was effective. Staff who administered medicines had the appropriate training. Staff followed appropriate infection control measures. The registered manager ensured staff were trained to use equipment and understand how to check items were fit for purpose.

At the lasted rated inspection this key question was rated as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant on the whole people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. People’s needs were assessed before they came to use the service. Only people who the team were confident they could meet their needs were accepted to be supported by the service. Overall, assessments detailed people’s needs but the registered manager recognised some additional explanation, and more detail was needed, when describing the needs of people with complex presentations. They ensured these identified improvements were made and they intended to use the learning to inform any the way they wrote the care records, in the future, for people who had complex needs. The staff routinely checked people were satisfied with the service and whether any needs had changed. People reported they found the staff closely listened to their views and care packages were very flexible, person-centred and would be altered quickly to meet any changes they wanted.

At the lasted rated inspection this key question was rated as 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. People and relatives found staff treated them with dignity and kindness. Staff sought people’s views about how to support them and, when appropriate, relative were included them in discussions about the support being offered. The registered manager enabled staff to deliver person-centred care and this was the fundamental basis of the design of the service. Processes were in place to take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. The registered manager also monitored care packages in ways to ensure staff well-being was maintained and they had adequate support to deliver the service. When staff reported people’s needs had changed the registered manager ensured action was taken to ask health and social care professionals to review whether the care package needed to be altered. People reported staff promoted their independence. They knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing. Staff provided care in a timely and responsive manner. The provider ensured staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Overall, staff felt the provider cared about and promoted their wellbeing, and supported them to deliver person centred care.

At the lasted rated inspection this key question was rated as requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. They had identified a gap in provision of culturally based care for people from the BME community so developed this bespoke service. The registered manager and staff ensured people from these local communities could access the care, support and treatment they need when they needed it. Predominantly people from the local Asian community used the service and to accommodate this the provider had ensured bilingual and trilingual staff were employed. This meant staff could readily communicate with people who spoke Punjabi and Urdu. A couple of clients were from Iraq and Iran, and they spoke Farzi. We discussed using communication passports and plans to support staff readily speak with these clients, which the registered manager undertook to do. Staff who worked with these clients had learnt key phrases in Farzi and this had assisted them to work effectively with people.

At the lasted rated inspection this key question was rated as requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was managed by leaders who created a culture aimed at promoting high-quality, person-centred care. Since the last inspection the provider had employed a company who provided staff experienced at improving adult social care services to assist them review and improve the governance systems. The company had provided a detailed and thorough assessment of the service and made recommendations around areas to improve and how this could be achieved. They had created an action plan, which the provider had systematically worked through, and the company routinely reviewed the changes being made. The governance arrangements now in place supported the provider to identify when and where improvements were needed and ensure appropriate action was taken. The registered manager valued diversity in their workforce and had put systems in place to ensure an inclusive and fair culture was created. This is based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity, inclusion, engagement, understanding challenges and the needs of people and local communities. The registered manager consistently looked at how to improve equality and equity for the people they provided support to and people who work for them. The provider ensured there was a system in place to encourage continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. They aimed to foster a positive culture where people feel that they can speak up and their voice would be heard. And encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. Staff understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership. They, when needed, shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.