Moor Park House Limited

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.

This service scored 82 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on

transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff and residents were involved in deciding the values and mission statement as part of an initiative led by the provider. This was shared in the resident charter, staff handbook and considered throughout recruitment. There was a ‘values tree’ where staff and residents could write what was important to them. Staff were encouraged to record reflective practice, which aligned to specific values including compassion and respect.

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.

There was a stable and consistent leadership team, that aimed to lead by example. Leaders were encouraged to access further learning and completed an induction following recruitment. From a review of incident records, it was evident that leaders understood their responsibilities regarding their duty of candour.

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

There were appropriate whistleblowing polices. Staff confirmed they felt able to speak up about any concerns or issues they may have, they would be listened to and responded to quickly.

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.

There were appropriate policies and training. The service celebrated diversity within the home, and participated in several events to reflect this. The service took part in awareness campaigns regarding issues that may affect different groups of people.

Staff did not have any concerns in this area.

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.

There was a clear and strong governance framework and structure. Leaders were aware of their responsibilities and had a good understanding of risk posed to the service. The registered manager made statutory notifications to the relevant bodies which is their legal duty to do so.

The provider conducted audits both for clinical and environmental measures. This was an improvement following the previous assessment. There were business continuity plans and the registered manager maintained records according to guidance. The provider conducted staff performance monitoring and took action when required.

The provider was involved in several projects to promote sustainability, including a scheme to encourage the use of electric vehicles for staff.

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.

The provider had connections with GP services and could access people’s GP records electronically to enable the sharing of information. The service worked with local voluntary organisations, including the community centre, local Headway groups, and garden projects. Local charities delivered relevant training to support staff awareness and skills.

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.

For example, the service participated in a virtual round with the hospital, which meant earlier discharges could be facilitated. The provider commenced a weight loss initiative, following their observations about unexpected weight loss. This produced a reduction in unexpected weight loss. The provider recently introduced the use of artificial intelligence to help assess people’s level of pain.

The registered manager led the local registered manager’s network and could share good practice across different services.