Elizabeth and Victoria Court

There was an up to date safeguarding of vulnerable adults policy and a staff training programme to support this in place. This meant that the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Staff were up-to-date with their mandatory training and had received recent clinical supervision. This showed us that people were being cared for by staff who were adequately qualified and skilled to perform their job role.

We saw that a clinical assurance framework was in place to ensure that the provider had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service.

A visitor confirmed that, 'I am always involved in the care being given." This and the other evidence that we reviewed showed us that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Those care records seen were lacking detail and consistency and did not always reflect the care needs of individual patients and how staff should meet these. This showed us that people did not always experience care and treatment that met their needs and protected their rights.

We noted that there were a number of current safeguarding concerns under investigation for this service and the provider was awaiting the results of these before they could address any identified concerns. This meant that people who used the service were not fully protected from the risk of potential abuse.

We noted a incomplete annual staff appraisal rate and gaps in the completion of supervision records. This meant that the people who used this service were at risk of potential unsafe care because staff were not fully supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

There was no consistent audit framework in place that identified the actions taken by the trust to address any concerns. This meant that the provider did not have an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.