Pottles Court

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 Outstanding. 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.

This service scored 75 (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 and leaders demonstrated a compassionate culture that listened to people. The ethos of the service was showcased on their website describing a positive shared approach to care.

The culture and values were shared by Pottle Court’s sister service, where staff supported each other. Staff understood the vision of the provider, and we saw examples of caring and compassionate care from all levels of staff.

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.

The registered manager knew the people in their care well. This was demonstrated by people and their families reactions to them. Family members sought them out; it was clear they felt they could rely on them and felt at ease with them. The head of care divided their role between working with people and supporting the registered manager in the office. This meant they worked alongside staff and could oversee staff practice and how the well-being of people was supported.

The registered manager was also supported by colleagues from the provider’s other care home, as well as the provider and newly appointed nominated individual.

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

There was a whistleblowing process. People and staff told us they felt heard and would be able to speak up about concerns if they needed to. Relatives said there was not a regular survey sent to them, but they felt able to provide feedback to the registered manager. One said the registered manager was “Really receptive.” Relatives said there were no regular relatives’ meetings, but they enjoyed the annual summer BBQ. A relative described it as a way of caring for the family.

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 shared life experiences with us and how the provider had supported them to continue to work by changing their roles or responsibilities. This had helped retain experienced and skilled staff members in the team. The provider showed through their discussions with us and their actions how they valued the diversity of their staff team. This included recognising staff members’ potential, and providing career opportunities for them within the organisation.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had decided to step back from the central role of governance to have space to develop services. They had appointed an experienced person as the nominated individual, who had clear plans to improve governance at the service and to address identified environmental issues. The nominated individual had already begun to improve information about the service and had plans on how to introduce new systems to improve overall governance. For example, surveys were sent out during our inspection, and increased meetings with families and people living at the home were planned.

The provider clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and worked in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider had sustained established links with research organisations with the focus on improving outcomes for people living with dementia. For example, contributing to research into meals which included preparation style, nutrition, taste and enjoyment as well as choice. This research recognised the emotional significance of some elements of meals, such as the comfort gained from puddings, as well as their calorific value. The practice of care staff showed they recognised the value of meals both for health and well as emotional well-being, which meant they translated knowledge into their person centred approach.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider provided staff with the skills, knowledge and tools to provide care that followed best practice. They used their own academic and management background to develop their leadership teams’ skills. Learning was based on day to day practice at each of the provider’s services, where case studies were discussed to aid learning and development. Management teams were encouraged to learn from one another and recognise each other’s strengths.