Inner City Care, Sherwood House

People's care records and risk assessments had improved. They now reflected people's care needs and were person-centred. Quality assurance processes were now more effective in highlighting areas of concern and improvement.

The recording of people’s medicines had improved and there was now a consistent approach to investigating and acting on safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents. Guidance and assessments provided by other health and social care professionals were now used to form meaningful care plans. Staff training had improved with more face-to-face training being provided. This helped to improve people’s experiences and reduced the risk of harm.

People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood, managed, and acted on risks. People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff worked with external agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions. For example, if admitted to hospital. Staff monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people to assist them with making decisions should they have reduced or no capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff supported people’s independence and encouraged and supported them to maintain relationships with family and friends.

Staff provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers were receptive to new ideas and there was a culture of continuous improvement.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.