Archived: OSJCT Buckland 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 this inspection, the service remained rated as requires improvement. Leadership and governance arrangements did not consistently ensure high-quality, person-centred care. Systems for oversight were not always effective, which meant leaders lacked assurance that care was safe and responsive.

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 clear, shared vision and strategy based on transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity and inclusion.

During the previous inspection, this had not been fully implemented by some leaders. Furthermore, people told us they were not involved in decisions about the service or encouraged to make choices about how they wanted to live.

During this inspection the provider demonstrated active efforts to seek feedback, taking steps to engage people in home meetings and offer more meaningful activities. Staff said, “Since the interim manager has been here things have changed completely, both people and staff feel they are being heard, it is a much happier environment”.

This meant improvements had been made which showed greater focus on participation and people’s choice.

During our previous Inspection, not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment, and support. They did not consistently embody organisational values or foster a positive culture. However, during this inspection feedback demonstrated improvements had been made. Staff said they felt able to approach managers and one staff member told us “Most staff feel listened to, and suggestions are taken on board”. This feedback meant there was a positive shift in culture.

Progress included changes in leadership and the introduction of designated “champion” roles in areas such as dementia care and medication. This meant staff participation, speaking up and their development of skills was the focus for managers to foster and take ownership and accountability within the team.

At our last inspection people did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. At this inspection we found there was a positive culture where people felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt happy to approach the interim home manager and felt they would be listened to. They said there was a much better atmosphere within the home which had a positive effect on people and staff.

The provider had systems to support people to speak up including a speaking up and whistleblowing policy. The interim manager encouraged staff to share their views. This created an environment where staff felt confident to speak up.

At our last inspection, the provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability, and good governance. During this inspection, the provider had not made improvements in this area. Records showed one person was losing weight and frequently refused meals. Although the provider was recording fluid and food intake, there was no evidence in care planning documents that showed proactive action to promote intake or explore reasons for refusal. Furthermore, there was no record of offering alternatives, providing choice, or active and dynamic monitoring. While changes were reported to the GP, documentation lacked sufficient detail on how the provider was addressing this.

Records showed weekly maintenance checks were completed. However, windows were recorded as clean and intact despite being visibly dirty. This was raised with the manager during the inspection, and immediate action was taken. Domestic audits were in place, but task descriptions and frequencies lacked clarity. The manager acknowledged this and had already begun implementing improvements to provide clearer guidance and direction for staff.

Medicine audits had been completed, and leaders had identified issues with the administration of as and when medication (PRN). These issues had been addressed with the staff. During the previous assessment there had been an issue with medicines being wrongly administered after one person’s discharge from hospital. Despite leaders putting safeguards in place to prevent a recurrence, the same issue had happened again. The manager and area manager told us they would consider further steps to ensure these failings did not occur in the future.

This meant that while the provider had introduced systems to monitor the governance of the service, these systems were not effective or fully implemented. Furthermore, leaders did not always learn lessons or have effective oversight of audits.

At our last inspection, the provider did not consistently focus on continuous learning, innovation, or improvement across the organisation and local system. Creative approaches to enhancing equality of experience, outcomes, and quality of life were limited. At this inspection, we found positive action had been taken through the introduction of a “wish tree,” enabling individuals to share ideas to improve their experience. Evidence showed people had been out enjoying outings such as trips to the local pub, coffee shops and attending the remembrance parade. Wishes on the tree seen during the assessment included visiting the local market and going for a steak dinner.