We have not been able to speak to patients using the service because there were no patients available during our visit. We gathered evidence of patients’ experiences of the service by reviewing their comments and other relevant sources, including feedback from patient surveys and audits.

We found overall, patients were satisfied with the quality of the service they received. One patient commented, “I am very happy with the service. Well done”. We found this represented the views of patients who had taken part in a survey that had been recently conducted by the provider.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

Records of patients were kept securely and could be located in a timely manner when needed.

We spoke with a relative of a patient who was satisfied that their relative’s care needs were being met by the provider. “This is our second time here. They are very good”, a relative had told us.

Patients’ privacy and dignity was respected. A relative told us “our privacy is respected at all times.” We saw that staff closed the door when they were attending to patients.

The premises were well maintained and appeared clean and tidy. A relative confirmed that staff demonstrated good hygiene practices, some of which we had observed when we arrived. Patients, staff and others were protected from the risk of unsafe or unsuitable equipment because appropriate risk assessments of equipment had been completed.

The provider had systems to monitor the quality of the service, some of which we saw had been utilised to produce service improvement plans.

We were concerned that the provider did not operate effective recruitment procedures in order ensure that staff were of good character and had skills and experience which were necessary to their work.