Marika House

“People were not supported to eat healthily and were not always engaged in meaningful activities. The provider’s internal monitoring systems failed to identify all of the concerns we found during this inspection and robust action had therefore not been taken to make improvements. The registered manager and provider were motivated to improve the service and started addressing these shortfalls during the inspection.”

“Where risk to people had been identified staff understood how to keep people safe. People were supported to have choice and control in some areas, could give feedback on their care, and were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness and respect. Medicines were stored, documented, and administered safely.”

“Staff were recruited safely and received appropriate training and supervision. Staff were trained to raise and respond to safeguarding concerns both internally and to external agencies.”

“The service learned from incidents and action was taken to ensure improvements were made where needed. The service was not always well maintained, however, areas for improvement had been identified and actions to rectify this were in progress. A new registered manager was in post and the provider had started taking action prior to and during our inspection to make improvements.”

“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, choice, independence, and good access to local communities which most people take for granted. We found people did not always receive care and support in accordance with the principles of this guidance.”