The Dale Residential Home

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 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. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 61 (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. The registered manager told us information was shared with staff on an informal basis during day-to-day practice. Some staff told us improvements around team meetings being more regular would create more opportunities for the team to come together and share ideas and ensure everyone felt informed and involved. However, staff did not have consistent opportunities to contribute to service development or share learning. There was no evidence that staff meetings were taking place regularly, which limited assurance that concerns, areas for development and learning from practice were identified, monitored and progressed.

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. Staff told us, “The [registered manager] is an excellent boss, I’ve not known anyone like them, so hands on hardworking passionate and caring.” The registered manager was committed to delivering a good service; however, gaps in governance and risk oversight meant the service was not consistently well-led and lessons were not used to drive improvements in care quality. During the assessment, we were unable to access some records because only the deputy manager had access to them. This demonstrated that important information was not readily accessible by the registered manager to support effective management, oversight and continuity of leadership.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and knew these would be listened to. Whistleblowing and safeguarding policies were in place to provide staff with clear guidance on how to raise any safety concerns.

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. Staff had access to equality policies and training to help them understand diversity, protected characteristics, bullying and harassment.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. Governance systems and processes were not consistently effective in enabling the registered manager to maintain adequate oversight of the quality and safety of the service. Robust mechanisms were not in place to identify, monitor, and act upon areas of concern. A lack of oversight across key areas outlined in this report indicate that quality assurance arrangements were ineffective and did not consistently support the delivery of safe and well-led care.

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. Professionals were positive about the service’s ability to work in partnership. One professional told us, “We have a good working relationship with The Dale, the team are always friendly and welcoming to us. They have a really good understanding of their residents and really advocate the best for them.”

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. Leaders were open to feedback during the inspection and demonstrated a willingness to engage with ongoing improvement and development. However, we found the current systems to identify trends, learn from issues, and implement improvements were not consistently effective and required strengthening to embed into practice.