South Collingham Hall

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 inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service.

This service scored 36 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, or meaningful engagement. They did not show an understanding of the challenges faced by people using the service or the needs of the local community.

There was an absence of provider oversight and leadership, which resulted in a lack of clear direction and shared vision for the service. The provider had not operated transparently, as they did not have sufficient awareness of day-to-day activities within the service. In addition, there was no effective managerial oversight to ensure people’s needs were understood or met consistently. These concerns were fed back during the assessment, and the provider subsequently took action to begin addressing the lack of leadership.

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

As previously highlighted, there was an absence of effective leadership within the service at the time of the assessment. Although staff were making efforts to provide care, this was occurring in the context of limited managerial presence and minimal oversight from the provider.

The provider had not established a positive culture in which staff felt confident to raise concerns and be assured they would be listened to. This was reflected in the issues identified, as detailed in the Safe section of this report. Had staff felt supported to speak up, the provider would have been more aware of the concerns within the service. Additionally, the Freedom to Speak Up policy did not include contact details for the Freedom to Speak Up guardian, which may have further discouraged staff from coming forward. There was also evidence that an open and transparent culture had not been developed, as demonstrated by the limited staff engagement with our requests for feedback during the assessment process.

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 demonstrate clear responsibilities, defined roles, effective systems of accountability, or robust governance arrangements. They failed to act on relevant information relating to risk, performance, and outcomes, and did not appropriately share this information when necessary.

As outlined in the Safe section of this report, there were significant shortfalls that the provider had not identified. This was due to ineffective auditing processes and insufficient oversight of risks. Although audits had been completed, they did not highlight any concerns, resulting in no action being taken to address issues or to improve outcomes and the environment for people living at the service.

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 focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

There were no effective systems in place to identify learning or areas of improvement in the service.