• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

SeeAbility - Bicester Support Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Office, 6 Priory Mews, Old Place Yard, Bicester, OX26 6DW (01869) 369843

Provided and run by:
The Royal School for the Blind

Report from 30 April 2024 assessment

Ratings

  • Overall

    Good

  • Safe

    Good

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

The assessment commenced on 1 May 2024 and ended on the 28 May 2024. The assessment included a site visit to the service by 1 inspector on 10 May 2024. We undertook this assessment due to concerns we had received about risk to people and staffing. We looked at 8 quality statements: safeguarding, safe and effective staffing, medicines optimisation, involving people to manage risk, capable and compassionate leaders, freedom to speak up, governance management and sustainability and learning improvement and innovation. We identified 1 breach of legal regulation in relation to governance. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. Right support: Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew how to report concerns. Although the provider had taken action to keep people safe, this was not always documented. Care plans contained relevant, up to date information. People received their medicines, however documentation such as medicine protocols were not always in place. Right care: Staff knew people and their needs well. People and relatives were involved in reviewing of care needs a. Right culture: Quality assurance measures were in place to ensure a culture of improvement. Governance and checks did not always capture the actions the provider took to monitor the service. Staff meetings and supervision took place, not all staff felt that these meetings were productive or that they were always supported by the provider. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.