Stratford Road

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintained safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

At our previous assessment, we found the provider had not always ensured effective systems were in place to audit medicines management. We also found medicines were stored unsafely in kitchen cupboards, increasing the risk of harm to people living in the service.

During this assessment, we found medicines stored securely in locked cabinets, reducing associated risks and helping to keep people safe. Managers carried out regular medicines audits to provide oversight and ensure appropriate safeguards were maintained. Effective monitoring systems were in place, enabling the provider to identify any issues relating to medicines administration and take prompt action where required.

These improvements demonstrated the provider had strengthened medicines management arrangements and had implemented effective systems to support the safe storage, administration and oversight of medicines.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

At our last assessment, the provider was not always able to demonstrate how decisions relating to restrictions had been made or evidenced. We observed window bars fitted across a person’s window, despite there no clear rationale to demonstrate why they were required.

At this assessment, we found the window bars had been removed and replaced with a window restrictor. This was a less restrictive measure, proportionate to the level of risk identified, and supported the person’s safety while promoting their rights and independence.

The removal of the window bars also ensured the service was compliant with the recommendations identified within the fire risk assessment. These improvements demonstrated the provider had reviewed restrictive practices and taken action to ensure restrictions were necessary, proportionate and in the person’s best interest.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

At our previous assessment of the service in March 2026, we found the restrictions placed on a person’s window had not been considered or assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. As a result, the person’s views and wishes regarding the restriction had not been adequately sought, recorded or considered when decisions were made.

During the assessment, we reviewed the person’s care plans, risk assessments and mental capacity assessments. Records demonstrated the person’s views had been sought and incorporated into their care planning and risk management arrangements. Documentation reflected the person’s preferences and showed decisions regarding their care and support had been made in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

These improvements demonstrated the provider had strengthened their approach to person centred care and decision making, ensuring people’s views were considered when assessing and managing risk.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

At our previous assessment in March 2026, we found medicines were not stored appropriately. Excess medicines were kept in a kitchen cupboard, which created an unnecessary risk for the people living in the property and did not follow good practice guidance for the safe storage of medicines.

During this assessment, we found all medicines were stored securely in locked metal cabinets, with access restricted to staff which reduced the possibility of avoidable harm to people. Records demonstrated that medicines had been administered correctly and the provider had governance systems in place to checking.

The arrangements for storing medicines were in line with good practice guidance and supported the safe management of medicines. These improvements demonstrated the provider had taken appropriate action to address the concerns identified at the previous assessment and had strengthened systems to ensure medicines were stored safely.