Salford 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 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 71 (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 leadership at the home and staff contributed to a culture at the home which was focused on providing good care to people.

Staff were committed and focused on the needs and wishes of the people living at the home. A staff member told us, “People are treated well and staff are treated fairly.” Another staff member said because of the way the home was led, “[Registered manager] is the best manager I have ever had. [Leaders] will give you a hand. They are fair and straight down the line. [Registered manager] will tell you if they want you to do anything differently.”

The registered manager and deputy manager told us how providing excellent care was at the heart of what they did. The provider said, “The home is so successful because of these two (Pointing to registered and deputy manager).” The provider said, “Salford House excels by going the extra mile.” The provider put this down to an excellent staff team managed by good leaders who cared. It was evidence from the provider, management team and staff, they all did their best for those living at Salford House. The registered manager said anytime time of day, anyone can reach me. The registered manager said they and deputy manager would help support staff on shift, or, help people when needed. This showed there was a positive and inclusive culture at the home.

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.

People were complimentary and praised the management. One person said, “We’ve got a very good leader because she (deputy manager) tries to please us. She’d be there straightaway to help us.”

Staff members told us people’s relatives were kept up to date with important and social events in the home. A staff member said, “We use Facebook for letting relatives know about what's happening in the home.” The provider showed us ‘Salford House Facebook page’ that contained many photographed examples of activities and events undertaken at the home with people and relatives participation. Staff were very positive about the culture of the home. One staff member said, “This is the best place I have been [employed] in. Residents are lovely and care staff are great to work with. Management always help you out.” Another staff member told us, “The staff and the management here are nice.”

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

Staff spoke confidently to us if they had to raise any concerns. Without hesitation, staff said regardless who the staff member was, any concerns would be shared with management or the provider to keep people protected. Staff told us they had not needed to raise any whistle-blowing concerns. The provider told us they visited the home, and they spoke with staff and made themselves available should staff want to speak with them.

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 described how they were encouraged to work as a team, for the benefit of people living at the home, and were treated fairly. Where staff required extra support or adjustments because of their own protected characteristics action was taken to put this in place. Staff gave examples to us showing how their individual health and caring role needs were responded to in a supportive way by leadership at the home. One staff member highlighted they were promptly supported when they wanted support from the leadership regarding their visa application. The staff member also told us they felt there was a fair distribution of week end shifts which helped them to maintain their own family life which was important to them.

The provider did not always have clear systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider had a system of quality assurance that included regular checks on aspects of care provided. This included checks of medicines administration, care records, equipment, environment, infection control and incidents and accidents. Some audits and checks that were delegated to other staff, needed to be developed further so they became effective to identify and drive improvements. The registered manager told us they checked samples of those audits, but some of those audits did not include some of the issues we found. We spoke with one staff member who completed checks on people’s airflow mattresses and asked how they made sure, they were set correctly. This was because during our visit we found an issue with 1 mattress that said, ‘requires a service’. The staff member said they did these checks on a Sunday (day before our visit) but does not record them. This meant we could not be certain how long 1 pressure relieving mattress had required attention. The registered manager assured us they would make additions to those audits and take immediate actions to resolve any issues we found.

The provider had other ways to seek people’s input such as relative meetings, through their own quarterly provider audits and through surveys. Whenever the provider visited, they told us they spoke to people and asked for their feedback.

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.

Systems for working with other health and social care professionals showed how staff advocated for people, so they had access to the support they needed to ensure they achieved positive outcomes, and their overall health and wellbeing was maintained. During our visit, we saw relatives visited family members and relatives were encouraged to visit whenever they wanted.

Staff gave us examples showing how people’s relatives were treated as partners in their care. For example, one staff member told us they had created a memory board for one person at the home with input from their family members. Staff were positive about people’s access to health care from visiting GPs and if there were any concerns, staff could ask a GP to review the person and this was done.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They 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 registered manager shared examples of how they improved staff’s care delivery through training and learning opportunities for staff, following improvements they had identified during their audits. For example, through verbal and written handovers. One senior staff member said this helped them know people’s needs better when discussed with another staff member at the start of their shift.

Leaders at the home were open to learning good practice from the provider’s internal audits, providers inspections across their other homes and external support from other professionals to develop people’s care further. For example, the provider was considering the Gold Standard Framework (GSF) accreditation programme to enhance and support staffs practice and experiences. This is a framework for improving end-of-life care. The registered manager gave us positive examples in how they provided end of life care to people and families. The registered manager felt the accreditation could give them recognition for the support they provided that would recognise positive feedback they received from relatives.

The registered manager and deputy manager said people at Salford House benefitted from being involved in varied activities and pastimes. They said this was an area they had developed over the last few years with positive benefits to people’s overall wellbeing. Salford House had positive links with the church, local children's group, using art therapy sessions, pets as therapy, as well as creating gardening groups and helping people feed garden birds. There was also a monthly party to celebrate any events, such as Halloween. The registered manager said these activities helped change people’s mind set and made people more relaxed. The provider told us Salford House excelled at supporting people’s interests and wanted to share this learning across their other homes.

There were systems to obtain and review feedback from people and their relatives. Leaders provided examples of learning opportunities identified when reflecting on accidents, incidents and safeguarding events. Processes reviewed every incident which happened in the home, and to share learning with staff. Where we found some improvements were required during this inspection, the registered manager and provider were responsive and honest in making the improvements without delay to make sure people continued to receive a service that met their needs.