Longmead House

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the provider’s oversight of the service did not always support the delivery of sustainable, high-quality care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

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 manager had developed a culture based on transparency, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and understanding people’s individual needs. The manager set a good example in their approach and conduct, exemplifying fairness, equality, and inclusion.

People told us the manager had worked hard to drive improvements at the home, which had improved the experience of the people who lived there. One person said, "[Manager] is very good, he has done so much for us. He has acted on the things that needed to be done."

Relatives also highlighted the manager’s efforts as the principal contributory factor to the significant improvements achieved since our last inspection. One relative said of the manager, “His care and motivation are what drives the home forward.”

Some relatives said that prior to the manager’s appointment, some staff were not as respectful to the people they supported as they should have been. The manager told us that when they took up their post, they recognised the culture at the home needed to improve and had taken action to achieve this. The manager said staff whose attitudes and behaviours did not meet the standards expected were no longer employed, and that he had worked with the current staff team to instill positive values and behaviours, including by modelling good practice.

The manager had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People told us the manager led by example in their attitudes and behaviours. They said the manager cared about the wellbeing of people who lived at the home and the staff who worked there. One person told us, "I am happy, especially with [manager]. He is very good, very kind. He looks after everybody."

Staff told us the manager was approachable and supportive. They said the manager spent time with them and people who lived at the home. One member of staff told us, “Any problems, we can go to him. He is always happy to listen to us, and to the residents as well.”The manager often worked alongside staff to ensure they had a good understanding of people’s needs and how staff should best support them.

The manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour, which is a legal obligation health and social care professionals have to be open, honest, and transparent when something goes wrong with a person's care or treatment. The manager told us, “We are always open and honest about any incident that happens.”

The manager had submitted an to become the registered manager of the service.

The manager fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had a complaints procedure, which set out how any complaints received would be managed.

People told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns they had and were confident these would be listened to and acted on. The relatives we spoke with were assured any concerns they raised would receive an appropriate response.

Staff told us the manager had emphasised the need to speak up about any concerns they had. One member of staff said, “I have always felt comfortable speaking up. If I see something, I will point it out.”

The manager 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 provider’s recruitment procedures helped ensure equality of opportunity for applicants, and staff who were appointed benefited from a working culture in which bullying and harassment were not tolerated.

The provider did not maintain effective systems of quality monitoring and good governance. There was insufficient support for the manager to ensure good quality, sustainable care and support.

The provider had invested in significant improvements to the fabric of the building since our last inspection, but was not involved in the day-to-day running of the service. This meant the provider did not have effective oversight of the service, or processes to ensure good governance was maintained in the manager’s absence.

The manager had been in post since summer 2024 and had worked hard since then to drive the significant improvements needed, both to the environment and the care people received. However, the manager did not have sufficient support from the provider or from a senior staff team to ensure standards could be maintained and improvements sustained when they were not on duty.

For example, the manager was responsible for the support and supervision of staff, assessing people’s needs before they moved to the home, writing risk assessments and care plans and keeping these under review, carrying out audits and quality monitoring checks, and liaising with healthcare professionals about people’s care. In the manager’s absence, no one else at the home was able to manage these key aspects of the service.

Following our site visits, we requested further information from the service to inform our judgements. However, the manager had gone on holiday and no one else at the service was able to access the information we needed. The manager had to interrupt their holiday to instruct staff where to locate the information, then send us the information from their personal email address. This demonstrated that the current management and governance arrangements were not sustainable in the long term.

The manager and staff 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.

We received feedback from the local authority that the manager had worked well with them to improve the service by being responsive to feedback and implementing any recommendations they made. We saw that good outcomes for people had been achieved through effective collaborative working between staff and professionals.

The manager focused on continuous learning and improvement, and encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience and quality of life for people. The manager ensured that people who lived at the home, their families, and staff had opportunities to contribute to improvement initiatives.

The manager had organised the introduction of electronic medicines records, and had put plans in place for the service to move to digitised care records.

The manager had introduced processes to ensure learning was taken from incidents and examples of good practice. The manager encouraged staff to reflect on their practice to identify how this could be improved.