Lindly House Care 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 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 provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the overall management and governance of the service.

This service scored 57 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. This meant that the provider did not always fully understand or respond to the changing needs and expectations of people. The provider had not always kept up to date with more modern approaches or developments in best practice. However, it offered a warm, homely, and caring environment, and people benefited from familiar staff who knew them well and provided support with kindness and compassion.

Not all leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively. The provider had not always kept up to date with changes in legislation and best practice, which contributed to the service moving from a ‘Good’ rating to ‘Requires Improvement’. Despite this the overall ethos of the service created by the provider remained kind, caring, and compassionate.

The registered manager appeared knowledgeable and understood our feedback and worked with the provider to make improvements following the inspection. Both were committed to improving outcomes for people using the service

The provider fostered a positive culture where staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff we spoke with told us they felt assured that their concerns would be acted upon by the provider and registered manager. One member of staff told us, “I would raise concerns with the manager, and they would deal with it. If I needed to, I would speak to you (CQC) and raise my concerns.

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 we spoke with told us they were treated fairly at work and were supported within their role and when personal circumstances were affecting their wellbeing.

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. Although quality audits were in place, action had not been taken to safeguard a person, and environmental risks in relation to a lack of window restrictors had not been addressed. The provider had also failed to follow up on an external fire risk assessment, including ensuring there were sufficient staff to meet the required safety measures.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The provider had not contacted the social work team when someone said they wanted to leave. This meant professionals were not told about the situation and could not help assessing risks or support the person properly. As a result, the provider had not worked well with all partners to keep this person safe.

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. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The provider’s quality audits had not ensured ongoing learning or improvement, and important safety information was not always acted on effectively.

In addition, the provider did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), meaning learning from best practice in supporting people’s rights and decision‑making was not consistently embedded.