St Anthony's

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 changed to 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 in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. This was because systems to support quality, safety and continuous learning were not operating effectively.

This service scored 62 (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 clear shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equality, equity, human rights, diversity, inclusion and engagement. Staff told us they felt valued, and feedback from professionals was positive about how the home was run and the commitment of staff to supporting people. Many professionals described the home as having a “homely feel” and said people received good care.

The provider had received the “Micro Provider of the Year” award, which recognises small providers that deliver high-quality, person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and senior 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.

Staff found the management team supportive and approachable, comments included, “I can approach the manager as they are always here on floor or in the office” and “ “She is always here helping and supporting us”

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

A whistleblowing policy was in place that encouraged staff to report concerns internally and externally if needed and outlined protections available to staff. There had been no safeguarding concerns raised in the last 3 years.

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. Efforts were made to improve equality and ensure fair treatment for all staff, regardless of background or protected characteristics. Staff all received the same opportunities to train and develop themselves. Staff were encouraged to contribute to service development through regular staff meetings and events.

Governance systems were in place to identify and address issues within the service, but they were not always effective.

Although the registered manager and staff knew people well, oversight arrangements did not provide sufficient assurance that care was delivered safely. Audits and checks had failed to consistently identify concerns, including unsafe medicines management, environmental risks and missing risk assessments. These shortfalls placed people at risk of harm.

While the registered manager took action when concerns were raised, these issues had not been identified through the provider’s own governance systems. This showed a reactive rather than proactive approach to oversight.

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 home worked with local dementia groups and had a good partnership with the local school who visited the home and celebrated important cultural events.

Staff at the home maintained positive working relationships with external professionals, including GPs, district nurses, and other visiting health professionals.

The provider did not consistently promote continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always support creative approaches to improving equality of experience, outcomes and quality of life for people, or consistently contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

On the day of the site visit, the registered manager told us appraisals had not been completed. After the visit, senior staff submitted a table showing appraisals for the previous year; however, this information was not available during the inspection.'