Garlands Residential Care Home Limited

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 remained 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 home was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance as the systems and processes were not completely effective in ensuring a consistently high-quality service. Improvements had not been made at this assessment and the home was still in breach of this regulation.

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 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 told us they were happy in their roles and were well supported by the managers. We observed staff talking positively to people. They demonstrated a person-centred approach and a willingness to support people to develop their independence. Relatives were positive about the staff team. One relative said, “The staff seem excellent; I get on well with them. [Relative] gets good care and the place seems lovely."

The registered manager lacked an understanding of regulations in respect of staff recruitment requirements and did not ensure robust checks were made before staff were employed to support people. The leaders at the service told us they were aware of areas for improvement within the service but there was no evidence of an action plan to outline what improvements where needed and by when.

There was a whistle blowing policy in place. Staff were informed about this as part of their induction. Staff could access the policy if needed. The provider was confident staff would raise any issues with managers and senior leaders. They encouraged openness and transparency within the staff team and encouraged staff to speak up and raise concerns during supervision meetings. Staff confirmed they were reminded of being able to raise concerns during meetings or supervisions.

The management team told us how they promoted workforce diversity and had systems to support any protected characteristics staff may have. The diversity of the workforce reflected the diversity of the people they supported. Staff spoken with were positive about the support they received and gave examples of when additional support had been given to meet their individual circumstances.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance.The quality assurance systems at the service completed audits, but these were not completed regularly. There were gaps in the system and the providers audits had failed to identify the concerns we found relating to staff records, care records and accident and incidents. These included medicines, recording of incidents, staff files and care records.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership. The provider and management team were willing to work in partnership and listened to feedback. People had access to other health professionals. We received no concerns from partners or visiting health professionals.

The provider was focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system and had started to make some improvements during our visits. However, there were still elements of practice which needed improvement as highlighted throughout the report. The managers were very receptive to our feedback about some of the issues we identified on inspection, such as accident and incident records and people’s records. The provider completed surveys with staff recently, the feedback received was generally positive.