Redstacks

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Managers had created a clear, shared vision of a small, homely service where people received personalised, respectful care. This was understood by staff and relatives. Staff told us they had time to provide good quality care because of the size of the service and strong teamwork. All relatives felt the culture was caring and person‑centred. One relative explained, “Redstacks provides outstanding care. It is a model care home which I think should be an example for others to replicate.”

The registered manager and deputy worked alongside staff and modelled the values of kindness, respect and dignity in day‑to‑day practice, which staff and relatives recognised. A relative explained the home, “Works like clockwork through a multi‑skilled staff team.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leadership was visible, experienced and compassionate. Staff described the registered manager and deputy as approachable and hands‑on. A staff member said, “[The registered manager] and [deputy manager] always help out. If we do need anything we just walk into the office.”

Managers knew people, relatives and staff well. They attended handovers, joined staff meetings and took part in social events, which helped them stay in touch with day‑to‑day practice. Staff felt valued and supported, with access to regular supervision, appraisals and training, including opportunities for qualifications such as apprenticeships. A staff member explained, “[The provider] pops in once or twice a week. They check we're ok and people are ok.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There was a positive speaking‑up culture where staff felt able to raise concerns and ideas. Staff told us, ”We are welcome to go into the office at any time.” They described an open‑door approach by managers. Formal structures such as staff meetings, supervision and staff surveys were used to gather and respond to staff feedback, and we saw examples where practical issues, such as childcare, had been discussed and resolved. The provider had systems to support safe whistleblowing and safeguarding practice.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The service promoted fair treatment and supported staff with training, supervision and flexible rotas. Staff described respectful relationships with no reports of discrimination. A staff member said, “We are well-supported, it's never too much trouble for us or the [people].” This reflected a culture of mutual respect.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. However, the systems had failed to identify the areas for improvement identified during the inspection.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders had made some attempts to establish links with local schools and churches. However, links with the wider community were limited. Some people described a wish to go into the community more. The home used a community minibus service for outings and was exploring how to increase opportunities for people to access the community as the service developed.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Leaders used audits, feedback and incidents to drive improvements. Structured care plan reviews and activity scrapbooks supported reflective practice. Staff were encouraged to develop skills and contribute to improvement initiatives.