Silverpoint Court 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

This service scored 54 (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. Leadership oversight was not always sufficiently structured to support a coordinated approach to meeting people’s needs.

The home did not currently have a registered manager in place and people; staff and relatives feedback was mixed around the culture within the home. Comments included, “I have spoken to several people at the home but to be honest don’t really know who the manager is” and “I feel I can make a complaint, but nothing gets dealt with.” We received consistent feedback around concerns about staffing levels and changes within management. A new manager was due to start and staff we spoke with felt this would have a positive impact on the culture within the home.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

At the time of our inspection, there was no registered manager in post. The provider had recently recruited a new manager who was due to start. The manager will need to apply to become registered with CQC as required. Feedback was mixed about support from management and the provider. Comments included, “The company is still trying to improve but it still feels a lot more work for improvement” and “The management have been trying their best, they are a work in progress.”

The operations manager has been supporting Silverpoint Court. The operations manager was responsive, open and honest throughout the assessment of Silverpoint Court. The provider acknowledged where improvements were needed and responded positively to feedback given.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The provider had a speaking up and whistle blowing policy in place, however, feedback we received was mixed around being able to raise any concerns. Comments included, “I think management do not always listen” and “Management are approachable.” Staff had received supervisions. We have shared this feedback with the provider to help with improvement around the organisational culture.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Feedback from staff was mixed around support they received from management and the provider. Staff did not always feel comfortable with raising concerns or that confidentiality would be maintained. One staff member told us, “Yes, I can make a complaint, but feel nothing is confidential, so wouldn’t bother.” However, we did receive some positive feedback. One staff member told us, “The management team are friendly, approachable, and supportive.”

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.

The provider had made improvements to their auditing and quality assurance systems; however, we still identified some shortfalls within their governance systems. For example, there had been an improvement in the number of statutory notifications to CQC, however; we found that there were still some incidents that had not been reported to CQC.

The provider had improved their systems around recording concerns and complaints and introduced more robust analysis around aspects of safety and peoples care such as more in depth falls analysis. The provider was in the process of reviewing and updating all care plans and risk assessments.

While these improvements were positive, they required further embedding and sustained oversight to ensure they became established practice. More time was needed to demonstrate how effective these processes have been in delivering sustainable improvements across the service.

The provider acted quickly on areas of concern and feedback we provided and were also being supported by the local authority at the time of the assessment to help drive improvement of the service.

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 provider ensured people had access to external healthcare professionals and staff worked closely with visiting professionals to ensure people received timely and coordinated support.

External healthcare professionals we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the way the service collaborated with them. Comments we received included, “The home raise health concerns in a timely manner” and “They are quick to raise concerns about the health needs of people.”

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.

The provider was currently carrying out extensive refurbishments around the home and had implemented processes to monitor risks around the home such as falls analysis. However, we found that whilst there had been an improvement in submitting statutory notifications, we still found that not all incidents were being reported to CQC. We found no evidence that people had been harmed. The provider acknowledged that improvements were needed and had been proactive in implementing improvements.