Saint Lawrence Residential 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 service was 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. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Although people described the registered manager and provider as visible and approachable, there was limited evidence that feedback was routinely gathered or used to shape culture or strategic direction. Staff and relatives reported improvements since the new registered manager started, but the systems that promote a consistent, transparent culture were underdeveloped.

he 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. Leaders were visible within the service. The registered manager and provider were actively involved in day-to-day care and people felt they responded promptly to concerns. Relatives consistently described them as approachable, compassionate and hands on. Comments included: “[Name] is always here…,if I have any concerns, I can ring them directly,” and “The [registered] manager is good and sits in the lounge talking with residents.”

People felt able to share feedback or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, this was not through a formal or clear process, such as meetings. Concerns were raised through informal discussions rather than a protected system. Staff told us they felt supported and were confident that any concerns they raised would be acted on. There was no evidence that lessons learned from complaints were used to improve standards in the service.

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 to were happy in their work and felt supported. One told us they felt things had improved in the service, while another told us, “I love my job!”

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. Governance systems were not embedded or consistently effective. Audits did not evidence action taken and identified gaps in medication oversight, environmental risk assessment and follow through of actions. Families described a lack of formal involvement in care plan reviews. While leadership visibility was strong, the service lacked robust quality assurance, consistent documentation, and clear sustainability planning.

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 worked with external professional agencies within the local community. This ensured people had access to other services when they needed them. Records we reviewed, and feedback from healthcare professionals confirmed this.

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. There was little evidence of structured learning or continuous improvement systems. Relatives mentioned inconsistent communication, and the absence of meetings or surveys, which restricted opportunities for learning from feedback. Our observations confirmed the need to improve audit follow through and documentation, indicating that learning from internal monitoring was not yet driving sustained improvement. Although leaders acted on feedback during the assessment, change relied heavily on individual effort rather than embedded systems.