Coniston Court

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 provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. Audits had been carried out; however these had not always identified areas of improvements that were required. Policies and procedures had not always been followed in relation to identifying risks and appropriately raising safeguarding concerns.

This service scored 62 (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. We identified within the home there were some cultural barriers between staff. However, there were regular staff surveys and staff told us they were able to share their opinions and felt listened to. There was a suggestion box were people, and staff could share suggestions they had. Staff told us, “[The management team] are always available to talk to.”

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. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Staff felt supported by the management team and held them in high regard. Staff told us how the registered manager was always available to them and had been a mentor for them. Staff told us, how the registered manager would support them on their shift if they were short of staff.

Community professionals told us, "I have a great respect for the manager of Coniston Court [Registered manager] who always seems to have their finger on the pulse, as it were, and knows about their residents. They have an increased turn over due to holding several discharge to assess beds and if they don’t know then they know the staff member who does know."

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was a whistle blowing policy in place and staff knew how to raise concerns. Staff told us they felt the management team were approachable and that they would talk to them if they needed to. The registered manager told us there was an open-door policy.

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 feedback was that they felt supported and involved in the service and would happily raise any issues with management. Staff told us they were treated fairly. There was flexible working available if staff needed.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. Policies and procedures were in place, however these had not been followed in respect to the registered manager doing regular walk arounds and identifying potential risks and hazards with the environment. Audits had taken place but had not always identified that equipment servicing was overdue. Risk assessments were not always in place or had not been routinely updated. Safeguarding procedures had not always been followed to ensure that people were kept safe from potential harm. Following concerns raised with the registered manager and provider, action was taken to support improvement and strengthen the oversight of the service. Ongoing improvements were being implemented but were not fully embedded.

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. Staff worked in collaboration with community professionals. The local church visited the home. Community professionals told us, "From a professional perspective, I am always impressed by how efficient the staff at Coniston Court are; the seniors/team leaders have always shown flexibility to accommodate my visits, and they seem to know well their residents’ presentation, they know their difficulties and strengths, as well as their routines very well."

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. There was an improvement plan in place, and some communal areas had recently been refurbished, further improvements were identified. The provider had implemented an action plan and completed repairs in parts of the home, however these works were still ongoing.

Staff felt confident with the training they had received and told us they were able to progress in their role if they wanted to.