Seeds Care Limited

People were not always protected from avoidable harm because risk assessments were not always clear, comprehensive and up to date. This was an area for improvement. Staff and leaders were able to identify situations that amounted to safeguarding and staff were confident to use the whistleblowing process if needed. Staff knew people well and were able to identify changes to health and identify care and support needs. Lessons were learned when things went wrong. Medicines were administered and recorded safely. Medicines practice to understand when to administer PRN (as and when required medicines) required improvement, the management team took immediate action to address this. Staff were recruited safely and were supported through training, there was a plan in place to make sure they had ongoing support in the form of supervision and appraisal meetings. There were enough staff to support people safely. Ongoing training made sure that staff had the skills needed to support people. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and actioned by the management team, safety checks undertaken by staff. The provider had systems and processes in place to detect and control potential risks in the care environment and processes in place to assess and manage the risk of infection.

People had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. Their care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics. The service worked in harmony, with people at the centre of their care. People were enabled and encouraged to make their own choices. People were supported to live independently. People were supported within the service and within the community to achieve their goals and aspirations. However, mental capacity assessments were not consistently undertaken according to best practice. Some decisions had been recorded without evidencing that people had been assessed to check if they could understand, retain and weigh up the information in order to communicate their decision about the matter concerned.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Their privacy and dignity was mostly respected. However, there was no lock on the toilet door in one of the houses to ensure people’s privacy and dignity. No action had been taken to address this such as contacting the landlord or maintenance. The provider confirmed the lock had been mended during this assessment. Every effort was made to take peoples wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. This included supporting people to live as independently as possible and to maintain important relationships. People told us they took part in daily living activities to promote their independence.

People were able to access care in ways that met their individual circumstances and protected equality characteristics, when they needed it. People’s preferences and choices were respected. People's communication needs were known and understood by staff. Staff helped people to communicate with the inspection team. People were not restricted and were able to access the community for leisure and access resources available to support a healthy and fulfilling life.

Governance was not always consistently embedded at the service. There were a range of audits and checks to assess and monitor the quality of care provided but they had not always been effective. The nominated individual for the provider was a visible presence at the service. They knew people well and on occasions supported people in their day to day lives.