Archived: Burgess House

We found people were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People's care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. People experienced care that met their needs. There was evidence that quality monitoring audits had taken place on a regular basis, and that learning from the audits was taking place and necessary changes had been implemented.

We were not able to speak to people who used the service because of difficulties with communication. We spoke to staff who acted as key-workers to people who used the service. They told us they regularly met with people to see how they were and whether they were happy with things. Staff interactions we saw showed the people were treated respectfully and that staff cared for people in accordance with their care needs. For example, we saw staff prepared a soft meal for someone who required this.

We found the provider did not have procedures in place to seek consent from people, however they acted in people's best interests when treatment decisions were needed. People's care was planned and delivered in accordance with their care plan. People had risk assessments in place to keep them safe. Staff knew about safeguarding and how to report it and the provider had updated its policies, however appropriate arrangements were not in place to ensure people were protected against the risks of restraint. Staff were supported through induction training and supervision. The provider kept adequate and secure records which were disposed of in accordance with their procedures.