Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe 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 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 service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance at the home.

This service scored 54 (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 based on equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion.

The provider’s service user guide included information about the home’s aims and values, ‘Our aim is to provide a safe, caring and homely environment where residents are treated with respect, kindness and compassion. Care is delivered in a way that promotes dignity, privacy, independence, choice, safety, equality, diversity and fulfilment.’

From observations, conversations with staff and feedback from people and their relatives, it was evident these values were mostly embedded in the culture of the service and people were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support or had the skills and knowledge to lead effectively.

The registered manager was not knowledgeable about issues at the home, or the actions needed to improve the quality and safety of care. They recognised and accepted the shortfalls in leadership reflected in our findings (please see the Governance, management and sustainability section of this report for more information). The registered manager did not have a deputy manager to support them which had contributed to these issues.

However, people, relatives and staff spoke positively about the provider and the registered manager and confirmed they led by example. One person told us, “The home is well run, the owner was in the nursing game before, so she knows her stuff. The registered manager is very approachable.” A staff member added, “[Registered manager] is very good at managing the team and is easy to talk to.”

The provider did not always ensure staff felt they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff gave mixed feedback about whether they felt able to speak up and whether action was taken in response to concerns. One staff member said, “Yes, I feel able to speak up but doesn’t always feel something is done so when things carry on, I feel there’s no point (raising concerns).” Another added, “I have spoken up. Actions, it depends on which senior staff member I have gone to, some listen more than others.”

From feedback and records, we were not assured staff had regular opportunities to feedback. Staff were not involved in daily handover meetings and team meetings were not held regularly. We received mixed feedback about the frequency of supervisions.

The provider sent a staff survey out in December 2025 and responses were reviewed, but it was not clear whether they had followed up on any concerns raised, or what actions had been taken in response.

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.

The provider had an equal opportunities statement and information about anti-harassment and bullying was available to staff. Staff generally felt well-treated by colleagues, senior staff and managers and we received no concerns about discrimination within the team. A staff member told us, “It’s a great team.”

The staff handbook included information about employee’s rights and staff confirmed they were able to request flexible working arrangements when required.

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, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider and registered manager did not have clear responsibilities, systems of accountability or good governance; and oversight at the home was poor. There was a lack of records to evidence adequate checks and audits on the safety and quality of care were carried out. Systems in place had not identified or addressed concerns we found during our inspection. For example, to record keeping, infection prevention and control or medicines management. An external consultant was used to audit the home’s health and safety processes annually, but this had not identified concerns found.

The provider did not have robust arrangements in place for the availability and integrity of records. Care plans and records were incomplete, and information was not always contemporaneous. The office was disorganised, and some information was not available to us during the inspection.

Data and notifications were not consistently submitted to external agencies as required, following an incident or accident.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared learning with partners and other services and collaborated for improvement.

The registered manager explained how they were involved in various registered manager groups and forums to share learning, and checked the Skills for Care and our websites for updates regularly. They had built a supportive working relationship with a couple of other local registered managers, to discuss concerns or seek support.

The home had links with the local school and people were supported to attend community events at Lostock Hall or the local community centre. A local church held a services and communion for people living at the home.

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 or contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had not always made improvements in response to feedback from external agencies. For example, the local authority IPC team and the fire and rescue service had made several recommendations which had not been actioned at the time of our inspection.

Systems and processes in place were not effective at driving improvement. Opportunities to learn from incidents and improve the safety of care had been missed; and people’s care was not always adequately reviewed or monitored to ensure their outcomes were consistently positive.

Staff were not consulted regularly to ensure they were involved in developing ideas or encouraged to share innovative approaches. A staff member said, “I may have an idea, but they get shut down quite quickly and it’s not followed up.”

However, the registered manager was open and transparent throughout the inspection process and has been responsive to the concerns raised, implementing several improvements following feedback.