11 March 2019
During a routine inspection
People’s experience of using this service:
People did not always receive safe and consistent support with their medicines. The provider did not have systems in place to consistently record the support people required with their topical creams.
Although the provider had systems in place to identify and address any unsafe staff members practise these were not consistently followed. There was a lack of appropriate signage to direct people and visitors in the event of an emergency in some parts of the building.
Information confidential to people was not always securely stored and there was inappropriate information contained in individual’s personal files. People’s privacy and dignity was not always respected.
People did not always have personalised care and support plans that reflected their needs and preferences. People did not always have information presented in a way they found accessible. People had mixed experiences of the provider’s complaints process and outcomes were inconsistently provided.
The management team did not have effective quality monitoring processes in place and when areas of improvement were identified these were not followed through to ensure people received good care and support.
People were protected from abuse and ill-treatment as the staff team had been trained to recognise potential signs of abuse and understood what to do to safely support people. Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures.
Staff members were knowledgeable about the relevant legislations that informed their practice and supported the rights of people. People were promptly referred to additional healthcare services when required. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and had choice regarding food and drink.
People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had positive relationships. People participated in a range of activities that met their individual choices and preferences which they found interesting and stimulating.
The provider had systems in place to ensure the Care Quality Commission was notified of significant events in a timely manner and in accordance with their registration. The provider, and management team, had good links with the local community which people benefited from.
Rating at last inspection: Good (published 18 June 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection, ‘Good.’
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk