Roby House Care Centre

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 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. The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities under duty of candour and was responsive in addressing any shortfalls or feedback we shared throughout the assessment. The current CQC rating was clearly displayed in the reception area and on the providers website.

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. Most people spoke positively about the leadership within the service. Comments from family members included, “The registered manager and the deputy manager are brilliant” and “The managers, carers and nurses are brilliant - 20/10. The registered manager has all the time to listen so does the deputy.” Staff also told us they felt supported in their role and they had the opportunity to discuss any personal issues through regular supervision meetings. The management team were fairly new to the service. The registered manager spoke positively about the support they received from the provider since their employment had started.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Systems were in place to ensure people who spoke up were supported and their identity was protected.

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. Policies were in place to support this.

The provider had developed systems to monitor the quality of care delivered at Roby House Care Centre however we identified some areas of improvement when implementing these within the service. For example, we identified some gaps in maintenance records, and some improvements were needed to strengthen the oversight of the quality of the care records completed by staff. This was relating to recording of personal care people received. Although we were assured from our assessment people had not been negatively impacted by this, the failure to ensure care records provided an accurate description of the care provided meant there was a risk people could receive care that was not in line with their assessed needs or preferences. Other systems were more robust. The management team demonstrated they acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. For example, systems to review themes and trends regarding events which occurred within the service, and across the geographical network of other services operated by the provider were robust and used to drive improvement to the quality and safety of the service.

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. One family member told us, “Everything is first class. They adapt to the needs of [Name]. [Name] had a cough, and [staff] called the Doctor out who visited the same day.” We observed professionals visiting the service throughout our assessment. One described the management team as, “Helpful and supportive when following up on any concerns.”

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. There were resident and family meetings however these were not always well attended. There had not been any recent surveys which would have been an alternative opportunity to gather people’s feedback. We discussed this with the management team and shared feedback from one family member who told us they didn’t always feel their concerns were listened to or responded to in the way they wanted. The registered manager told us they would arrange to meet with this family member and told us they would consider sending out a family survey to gather the views of people who could not always attend meetings within the service.

The complaints procedure was visibly displayed on notice boards outlining the process should a person wish to raise a concern. People told us they would feel confident raising a complaint. One family member commented, “I would feel confident to report if I wasn’t happy.”

Team meetings were held with staff which enabled them to feedback their views about the service. A recent staff survey had been completed and the registered manager told us they would produce a ‘you said, we did’ board to describe the actions taken in response to staff feedback.