Cockington 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance at the last inspection. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 64 (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 spoke positively about working in the home and described a culture that was open, supportive, and focused on the needs of the people they supported.

There was a shared direction and focus on stability in the service.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and the importance of treating people with dignity and respect. Leaders promoted a culture where concerns could be raised and discussed. Staff told us they felt comfortable approaching managers for advice and support and were confident they would be listened to.

There was not a stable management team in place to share the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There was no registered manager at the time of the assessment. This impacted upon the stability of the service, despite the improvements made in relation to the enforcement action taken.

Relatives were not assured on the leaders within the home. One relative told us, “There is rarely a manger there and I am not kept up to date. I feel my relative is safe but it [service] is not managed properly.”

The provider acknowledged the lack of a registered manager was having an impact on the service. They told us they wanted to ensure a suitable manager was brought into post to support the home effectively. The provider recognised that improving leadership capability would have a positive impact on both people living at the home and the staff team.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and were confident the provider would listen and take action where needed. Staff were able to describe how they would report poor practice and understood their responsibilities to speak up if they were worried about a person's wellbeing or safety.

People within the service were observed raising concerns with the provider during the assessment, demonstrating their comfort in highlighting any issues they find. The provider gave an appropriate response and assurance.

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 told us they felt supported and treated equally. Staff told us there had been an improvement in the morale and they felt listened to by the provider and regional management. Staff were supported with reasonable adjustments where needed. Staff valued this open and honest approach to meeting their individual needs.

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.

Although there was management cover in the absence of a registered manager, the oversight of the service required strengthening by having a stable management presence.

Auditing and monitoring of the service had improved following the enforcement action we had taken; however, issues were still found on this assessment which had not been highlighted or addressed by the regular audits in place.

The provider addressed the concerns found and told us they would implement stronger governance systems in order to prevent the issues arising again.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

The provider had learned from the findings from the previous CQC assessment and taken action to improve the quality of the service people received, however these required reviewing and embedding to have more of an impact.

Systems in place were not always effective in driving improvements which meant learning opportunities could have been missed.

Strengthening governance systems, improving documentation and embedding consistent, effective practices would support positive changes in the quality of people’s care and their overall experience of living at the home. Sustainable improvement will depend on leaders committing to a culture of continuous learning and innovation.