Northfield House 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

The provider and registered manager undertook designated audits and checks including environment, staffing, finances and medication. However, systems lacked a unified approach to oversight because audit outcomes were not distributed among the management team.Audits and checks were not consistently effective in identifying improvements required in care planning. For example, we found records were not always accurate or reflective of people’s wishes and preferences, and care records did not always provide provided sufficient oversight of people’s well-being. We raised this with the registered manager who told us they would resolve this with the provider following our inspection visit.

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.

We found although people were happy with their care, there were missed opportunities to fully involve people who used the service for short stay assessments. There was a lack of effective planning to support the ongoing development and improvement of the service. Opportunities to identify and introduce innovative ways of working were not consistently explored. However, the provider did share learning from incidents and had given thought to environment design to support people living with dementia to orientate independently.