Sutherlands Nursing 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 remained in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 61 (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.

We received mixed feedback about the culture in the service. Staff were generally positive about the manager and the support they received, however, told us the provider was profit driven and did not hold the same values around person-centred care. For example, staff told us they needed to do their own fundraising to ensure they had money to purchase basic activities supplies as this was not budgeted for. Another staff member told us they were not able to offer crisps as snacks to people as the provider thought this was unhealthy and would be eaten by staff rather than people living in the service.

Some staff told us they would not be happy for their own relatives to live in the service. One staff member said, “Staff are wonderful. But if my [relative] needed much more support, knowing what I know about the team slacking with answering the bells and not being supported depending on where staff were allocated, then I would worry their needs would be neglected.” Another said, “Sometimes I would and sometimes I wouldn’t be happy for my relative to be here. When I would, it’s when we have a good team and enough staff. But when we don’t have that, there isn’t enough for us to cater to everyone's needs.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Feedback about leaders was mixed, with a disparity between the manager and the provider. The manager was new in their role, was keen to drive improvement in the service and was open and response to our feedback during the inspection. Staff were complimentary about the manager. One staff member said, “[Manager] is great, when I started here, they were a senior, they’ve done every role know what it involves, they’re approachable.” Another said, “[Manager] is nice, very caring and there if you need them”. A relative said, “On the one hand, good caring staff. On the other though, one has a sense that the owner isn’t providing the necessary tools for the job.”

Staff, people and relatives felt confident to speak up and raise any concerns. One staff member said, “When I have had to go to [Manager], they have always been supportive. I haven’t had to go to them with any concern here but feel I could go to them if needed.”

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 received equality and diversity training.

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.

Systems and processes were not always effective in areas such as staff induction, person-centred care, dignity, promoting choice and mental capacity. This increased risks to people's health, safety, and well-being. The service had recently started to reintroduce nursing care into the service but there were no clear transition plans to support the provision of this specialist service.

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 service had a good relationship with their local GP. There was a weekly GP round which enabled people to be seen in the service. Appropriate referrals were made to local authorities for social care support where needed.

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.

At our last inspection, the provider was in breach of legal regulations. At this inspection we found continued breaches of legal regulations and also a new breach of legal regulations. This did not demonstrate a focus on learning and improvement. However, the manager was responsive to our feedback and took prompt action during our inspection.