My Carer

“There was a registered manager in post at the time of this assessment.”

“We identified breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, consent and good governance. We also found the provider had not ensured their Statement of Purpose accurately reflected the regulated service being delivered. As a result of the concerns identified, we have asked the provider to submit an action plan detailing how they will address the areas requiring improvement.”

“The provider was supporting people whose needs were not reflected within their Statement of Purpose. This meant they could not demonstrate that all aspects of the service being delivered had been considered within their registration arrangements.”

“We assessed the service against the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. The service was not always able to demonstrate these principles were consistently met. Although people generally received kind, caring and personalised support from staff who knew them well, significant weaknesses in governance, risk management, care planning and oversight arrangements reduced assurance that care was consistently planned, delivered and reviewed in line with people's needs and preferences.”

“People, relatives and professionals consistently described staff as caring, compassionate and committed to supporting people's wellbeing. People valued the positive relationships they had developed with staff and told us they felt respected, listened to and supported to maintain their independence. Professionals described the service as responsive and flexible and told us staff worked positively alongside health and social care partners to support people.”

“However, systems designed to assess, monitor and manage risks were not effective. Risk assessments and care plans did not consistently contain sufficient information to support the safe management of people's needs. We identified concerns relating to the management of complex healthcare conditions, including dysphagia, PEG care, diabetes, epilepsy, severe allergies and the use of emergency medicines. Care records did not always provide staff with clear guidance on managing identified risks, recognising deterioration or responding appropriately during emergencies. This placed people at risk of receiving unsafe care and avoidable harm.”

“The provider's governance and quality assurance systems were ineffective. Audits were not routinely completed, and existing oversight systems had failed to identify a range of concerns found during the assessment, including shortcomings in risk management, care planning, medicines management, consent processes, safeguarding oversight and record keeping. Leaders relied heavily on an electronic recording system and staff knowledge; however, they had not ensured records were sufficiently detailed, person-centred or reflective of people's current needs. As a result, leaders could not demonstrate effective oversight of quality, safety and outcomes.”

“Medicines management processes did not always reflect best practice. Information relating to medicines prescribed on an as-required basis did not consistently provide staff with sufficient guidance to support safe administration. Medicines audits had not identified these concerns, reducing assurance that medicines systems were operating effectively.”

“The provider did not consistently follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act…”