Note30 Oct 2021
Registered manager was described as approachable and responsive.
Note30 Oct 2021
Complaints were logged, investigated, and actioned appropriately.
Note30 Oct 2021
Personalised care plans with step-by-step guidance were developed following detailed needs assessments.
Note30 Oct 2021
People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff were attentive to individual preferences.
Note30 Oct 2021
Structured quality assurance including questionnaires, service user reviews, and unannounced spot checks.
Note30 Oct 2021
Comprehensive induction programme including three shadowing sessions with experienced staff before independent working.
Note30 Oct 2021
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and supported people to make day-to-day decisions.
Note30 Oct 2021
People were supported by a consistent staff team who were punctual and stayed for the full duration of visits.
Note30 Oct 2021
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding alerts, whistleblowing procedures, and how to report concerns.
Note30 Oct 2021
People gave consistently positive feedback, describing care as 'Excellent', 'Brilliant', and 'Fantastic'.
moderategovernance30 Oct 2021
The registered provider's approach to medicines audits was inconsistent. We saw a date and signature on some MARs to show they had been checked, whilst on others there was no signature.
moderaterecord_keeping30 Oct 2021
Where staff members had used this code on the MAR, there wasn't always a full explanation in the daily log to explain the reason for its use.
criticalmedication_management30 Oct 2021
On four consecutive days the daily logs for the person stated 'left [the person's] tablets on the table for [the person] to take.'
criticalmedication_management30 Oct 2021
Medicines records did not accurately account for individual medicines given to people. We found unaccounted for gaps in medicines administration records (MARs) for three out of four people.