Lingdale Lodge

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Our observations and feedback from people, relatives, staff and external professionals demonstrated there was a positive culture within the service. The registered manager fostered an environment based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion.

Staff were supportive to people and to themselves. One relative said about staff, “What a lovely team. I can see how they value and respect each other. That told me a lot about a good culture and working as a team.”

Inclusive leaders understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. They led with integrity, openness and honesty and had the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

The registered manager was effectively supported by the provider, who in turn supported their staff with the day to day running of the service. Where necessary improvements were needed to improve quality of care, for example, to the environment these were acted upon.

People, staff and professionals were complimentary about staff and how the service was managed.

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

Processes in place provided staff with opportunity to speak up if they had any concerns. Staff had received training in whistleblowing should they have any concerns around culture and practice at the service.

Staff told us they had opportunity to provide feedback during staff meetings or if they needed could approach the registered manager individually. One staff member told us, “I would describe the manager as a 'motherly' type of person who always has time for us and is honest.”

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.

The registered manager respected staff, treating them as individuals, and as a whole workforce. The staff group was diverse. Staff from different faiths, religions and backgrounds were deployed. The registered manager included diversity as part of the recruitment process.

Staff and the registered manager gave examples of where reasonable adjustments had been made to support staff, for example, additional needs arising from a disability or flexible working.

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. The registered manager and provider had oversight of the service. This included holding regular meetings between them and staff.

There was a range of quality monitoring and auditing in place which confirmed where action was identified from the auditing process this was taken promptly. However, we did identify environmental auditing required enhancing in small areas.

The provider and registered manager were fully aware of their legal responsibility to be open and honest when things went wrong. There was a positive approach to continuous improvement and development.

The registered manager and staff collaborated and worked in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Staff and leaders ensured people received holistic and continuity of care and support which met their needs.

Partners we spoke with as part of the inspection confirmed the service was collaborative and worked in a jointly with them.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement throughout the service. They delivered equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe and effective practice.

The provider had, following our previous inspection, now embedded governance and systems and processes over a sustained period. This meant learning and improvement to address previous shortfalls had been taken seriously and acted upon satisfactorily.