Archived: Smithy Bridge Court

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (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.

Staff could confidently and consistently explain the values and visions of the service and appeared to be driven to provide care in line with these values. Daily flash meetings ensured good communication between seniors and the recent introduction of ensuring one representative from the care staff attended each meeting ensured their voice was heard, and information was relayed effectively to the rest of the staff.

There was a strong focus on treating people as individuals and staff felt any issues they raised and suggestions they made would be responded to appropriately. A senior staff member told us although previously morale had been low due to the changes in management, the new management now listened to staff and had brought positive changes.

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.

The provider was actively involved in the service, spending time on site and conducting walk arounds, spot checks and updating care plans if appropriate. The manager was new to the service and spoke highly about their ongoing induction and support they received.

We saw evidence of staff inductions, supervisions and training records as well as regular audits. Staff spoke positively of management and seniors and told us they were ‘learning a lot’; there was trust and respect for them. Our observations whilst on site supported staff comments and we saw seniors were engaged and active within the home.

The provider fostered a culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Most people knew how to raise their concerns and felt able to do so. One person told us, "From time to time they have meetings where we can express our opinions if we want to.”

Complaints or concerns raised were recorded, investigated and appropriately actioned in accordance with the provider’s complaints procedure. There were also policies and procedures in place to support staff to speak up if they had concerns about care and support.

Relatives we spoke with were aware of meetings; these being a forum where things could be raised if they were comfortable in doing so. One relative knew of a pending meeting and told us, “There is a relatives meeting coming up and there was one a couple of months ago. They are useful; things get said and they always deal with any issues quite well.”

Since the new manager had come into post staff felt more positive; they were confident they would be listened to if they raised any concerns and that a course of action would be taken to investigate and resolve these. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.

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 provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to support staff and promote equality and diversity within the workplace.

The provider made reasonable adjustments to individual working conditions, where possible. These adjustments enabled staff to do their jobs in supporting people effectively and consistently, whilst also recognising any home-life responsibilities staff might have, such as childcare or elderly relatives.

The provider had improved the supervision template to help support staff. A well-being score was sought from staff both prior to and after supervision. Discussions around how well-being could be improved were undertaken if needed.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality care, treatment and support.

The manager and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. They conducted themselves in an open and honest way; statutory notifications were submitted for significant events that occurred in the home.

Relevant people were kept informed of events, for example regarding falls and incidents, such as relatives, professionals and other stakeholders. Most people we spoke with were aware of meetings held but not all chose to attend. One person told us, “From time to time they have meetings where we can express our opinions if we want to.”

There were systems and mechanisms in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service provision and to drive improvement. Care plans were updated to reflect changes in care needs as determined by audits and reviews of people’s care and support.

The manager completed a daily walk around of the home to check all aspects of the service. They noted any required action points and immediately addressed these with relevant staff, to ensure a speedy resolution.

Staff and leaders understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other organisations, including health and social care professionals, for the benefit of people’s care. People described to us how the care and support they received had benefitted their health.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about the service. A social care professional we contacted told us, “Smithy Bridge were keen to work collaboratively with me and [person’s] family.” They judged that the collaborative working ensured the person was appropriately supported and the frequency and intensity of behaviours that challenge were reduced.

The provider and manager collaborated and worked in partnership with external stakeholders in order to support care provision, service development and joined up care. Staff and leaders engaged with people, communities and partners to share learning with each other that resulted in improvements to the service.

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.

The provider was proactive in sharing learning and lessons learnt across the services. We saw examples of this which included sharing information about an adverse reaction to a drug, guidance regarding Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) feeding and the importance of using window restrictors. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy is a procedure where a feeding tube is inserted through the abdominal wall directly into the stomach. This allows for nutritional support when a person is unable to eat or drink adequately through the mouth. Weekly meetings with staff and seniors provided opportunities to discuss any complex care needs and share ideas on how best to manage these for individuals.

There was evidence of regular supervisions where staff had the opportunity to discuss any further training they felt necessary, and staff performance was evaluated through observations. Staff said they had good relationships with people’s relatives, and this contributed to understanding and getting to know people in the home.

An internal awards scheme was in place which recognised when staff had excelled in a specific area or with a particular resident. Staff said management were approachable and receptive to suggestions; one staff member told us, “Management is good; anything I bring up, I see changes.”