Shaftesbury New Court Place

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 the last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection this key question has remained 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 64 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Most staff were positive about how the team supported people live their best lives. A staff member said, “I would feel comfortable recommending the service and working here.”

The provider had a service action plan in place. This included areas identified by the team as needing improvement. The registered manager told us they had not yet developed this to include their findings since starting in the home, they were currently working to ensure all requirements were being met. Their new ideas to further improve people’s experiences and staff skills were to follow when other areas had been completed.

Feedback from people and their relatives was obtained through meetings, surveys and care plan reviews. In addition, people, relatives and visitors told us the registered manager was available, approachable and helpful. Meetings were held with staff to share and receive information.

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. However, some feedback was mixed.

People and most relatives were positive about the registered manager and staff team. A relative said, “I have met the manager a number of times, I find them approachable and available. I am confident to raise issue with them (and with other staff).” Another relative said, “The management team is easily accessible and capable of addressing concerns quickly and in the right way. The head manager is new, so maybe it would be a good idea for them to have an open meeting (e.g. by Zoom) with families.”

Most staff were positive about the culture and approach in the home. A staff member said, “Management are visible and approachable.” Most staff told us they would have a relative of theirs live at the home. Some staff had found the changes in management and some processes more difficult.

There were systems in place to help ensure care was personalised and people had a positive experience. Further work was needed to improve consistency and address any issues, concerns or complaints people, relatives and staff may have.

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

Most staff said the registered manager engaged with and involved them. A staff member said, “I feel able to speak up when necessary.” However, another staff member said, “I can´t speak up freely, and if an email is sent, there may be no response.”

Most staff told us the management team were visible and approachable.

There were resident and staff meetings. A survey for people, relatives, and staff had been carried out. Actions were implemented and recorded where needed in response to feedback.

Relatives had regular contact with staff and managers, and during assessment, care planning and events in the home. This helped effective communication and sharing of feedback.

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. However, some staff did not feel heard or supported by the management team.

Most staff felt supported and respected by the management team. A staff member said, “Staff are encouraged to share views and concerns.” However, another felt the management changes had not been as positive. They said, “I think the service could run better if management listened more to staff concerns and took complaints seriously.” We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they felt communication had improved with staff and there were opportunities for staff to share view in meetings, surveys and with the suggestion box. We discussed with the management team the need to develop these systems further.

The provider had an equal opportunities policy which they adhered to. Staff employed demonstrated different backgrounds, ages, genders and ethnicity which was a benefit for the people they supported.

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.

There were governance systems to help identify and address any issues. These systems covered key areas such as care plans, health and safety, clinical needs, environmental issues and medicines. Where issues were found, a plan was developed and actions taken to resolve it. Most of the areas needing improvement we identified as part of this inspection had already been identified as part of the governance systems. There had been work ongoing in relation to care plans, staff training and communication, and to improve the environment. However, we discussed areas for further development and linking in with a local care providers association to strengthen this.

Most staff were positive about the management and running of the service. A staff member said, “The service's strengths include the commitment of staff to supporting people respectfully and promoting independence. As with any service, there are always opportunities to continue improving communication and resources to ensure the best possible outcomes for people supported.” Another staff member said, “The manager is still getting to know the home, all the resident’s individual eccentricities and the same with the staff. They are very approachable and I can always ask or give criticism.” However, another staff member said, “Spot checks were done on my shift once this year.”

The management team shared they had been working on providing support and guidance for staff to help improve their roles and experiences. We discussed the need to review what is working well and what needs further development to ensure consistency.

The management team responded to any complaints, feedback and requests.

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.

People and relatives told us they were supported to access other professionals.

A visiting health and social care professional told us they had no concerns about the service. They said, “Having supported many homes over the years, I honestly feel this is one of the best.”

The management team worked with agencies outside of the organisation. This included health and social care agencies and benefitted people and the service.

The provider planned to focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They were actively contributing to help develop safe, effective practice and research.

Most staff told us information was shared and training provided to drive improvements and innovation. A staff member said, “Information about policy changes, lessons learned, safeguarding matters and service improvements is communicated to staff.” However, another staff member said, “Safeguarding is treated as something the carers should not know about, as it is only being discussed among the team leaders, with no feedback to the carers. Outcomes and actions from inspections are discussed in meetings, but mostly the positive ones.”

The provider was developing systems to help identify any learning and improvement areas. The management team had plans to further improve people’s experiences. This included further training and development of unused rooms in the house to benefit people. The registered manager shared that their main focus was on getting everything where it needed to be and then further developing the service, with the involvement of people who lived there.

They told us, future plans included, “Working with activities co-ordinator to review shifts and activities within NCP, developing an activities matrix, implementing one-page profiles for residents, onboarding a volunteers who will be able to facilitate activities, exploring if we can attract volunteer drivers to the service to help with outings for residents and training needs analysis of clinical training planned, working closely with the Director of Clinical Services.”