High Lea House

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

At the last inspection the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance. Not enough improvements had been made and the service remains in breach.

This service scored 54 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The home manager was not currently registered with the commission.

The provider told us they were continuing to try to sell the home and were hoping for the sale to go through shortly. This uncertainty affected their ability to make long term plans but they were committed to making the required improvements identified at the last inspection and we saw improvements during this inspection. However, further improvements were required as identified in earlier sections of this report.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider had failed to submit notifications to the commission of events at the home as required by law.

Staff were positive about the home manager and said they were supportive and could approach them with any concerns.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

At the last inspection staff shared concerns about their confidence in speaking up. At this inspection these concerns continued. Staff told us they felt the provider would not listen to any suggestions or concerns they might raise. They said that they felt the provider would penalise them for doing so.

At the last inspection the home did not have an up-to-date policy on whistleblowing, a new policy had been introduced since then.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

At the last inspection we found staff had not been given the opportunity to be included in improving the service as they were not given the opportunity to provide feedback through staff meetings, surveys or individual supervisions with management. At this inspection we found this had improved with staff meetings now being held, staff being provided with supervisions and asked to complete staff surveys. However, further improvements were required to develop a culture where staff felt comfortable to raise concerns.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

At the last inspection we found a lack of effective systems to identify where improvements were required in the service.

At this inspection we found there had been improvements, and a range of audits were now being carried out. However, these had not been effective and identifying and addressing the issues identified during this inspection and further strengthening and embedding of these audits is required.

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.

At the last inspection we found people and their families were not consulted or asked for feedback about their care or the home. Care records were not up to date or accurate which meant we could not be assured about the quality of information shared by the home to professionals.

Since the last inspection the home had carried out a quality survey and held meetings with people. Care records had been reviewed and updated and now contained people’s wishes and preferences.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

At the last inspection we found the leadership team were not proactive in obtaining information through audits, incidents, and safeguarding alerts to improve the service. They were not learning lessons from adverse incident to make improvements.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made to audits but further improvements were required. Improvements were also required to ensure actions identified after accidents were implemented. The provider needed to develop a culture with staff where they felt comfortable to raise concerns.