Kirklands

“We assessed the quality statements from the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.”

“We found three breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, need for consent, and good governance. The service did not always ensure safeguarding procedures in place were effective. The service did not always ensure people’s risks were recorded and some people’s risk assessments contained inconsistent information. The service did not always ensure people’s consent was gained or recorded where required. The systems in place to assess and manage the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.”

“The service identified and investigated concerns about safety and took action to keep people safe where required. However, lessons learned from safety incidents were not always shared and discussed with the staff team to continually embed good practice. A lack of information or inconsistent information in people’s care plans and risk assessments meant there was a risk people would not experience a smooth transition between different services. The service had safeguarding procedures in place, and concerns were investigated and acted on. However, some staff told us they did not feel confident to raise concerns or whistle blow.’ Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, care plans did not always include information about people’s risks. The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. However, the service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who worked together well to provide care that met people’s individual needs. The service made sure that medicines were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, topical preparations were not well managed, and we found occasional shortfalls in medicines record keeping.”

“The service did not always have effective procedures in place to ensure people's care plans included detailed and consistent information. The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The service did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment. However, the service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence.”

“The service always treated people with kindness, empathy, dignity and compassion. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. The service had an employee engagement manager who visited the home to promote the wellbeing of staff. However, while some staff felt…”