Archived: Hyde Lea

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation regarding good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 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.

The provider had a statement of purpose’ and vision and strategy for the service which staff and leaders were aware of; some minor amendments were needed to this document, which the provider updated during this inspection. People and relatives knew who the registered manager was and felt comfortable speaking with them or any other member of staff with any concerns. We saw the registered manager was visible in communal areas throughout the inspection, speaking to people by name.

Hyde Lea had a relaxed, welcoming atmosphere, and a calm feel to it, and reflected a supportive staff culture. A relative told us, “Hyde Lea was the better option because it was felt the dynamics were much more what [person] needed; a smaller residence with a ‘big family’ feel.”

Meetings had been set up which provided an opportunity for people and their relatives to have a say in care provision. A relative told us, “I am kept up to date with any changes; the staff here are well trained to manage any risks, and they know what to do in any eventuality, and they always let me know if there is anything.”

Staff meetings and daily shift handover meetings were held to provide updates, and to ensure the provider was meeting people’s needs. Leaders engaged regularly with the staff team. A staff member told us, “Formal staff meetings tend to be every few months and we are able to voice any concerns.”

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

Leaders were suitably experienced and qualified and had clearly defined roles and accountabilities. Leaders had worked previously in the social care sector and had the skills and competence to get involved in the direct delivery of care if required.

The staff handbook included an organisation chart, the principles and values of the provider, the aims, objectives and values of care which stated, ‘To provide high quality care to the local population and beyond, meeting individual needs in a safe, caring, effective and responsive environment, by a well-led workforce with the skills knowledge and resource to meet the highest standards.’

A relative told us, “[Person] is safe and sound here, is settled, and I have no safety concerns. I know if I have any concerns I can go to [provider name]; we have a good relationship, and the staff are well trained, they have the key skills for medication and pain relief, and I have met the night staff.”

The provider ensured there was always suitable managerial cover; this included leaders being available to provide advice to staff throughout the night and at weekends. Staff told us they felt supported and received the necessary support and supervision. A staff member told us, “Managers are okay. You can talk to them about personal issues and concerns; they take it seriously and always follow up with you.” The provider said, “We have supported staff with personal issues, and they can come and chat to managers at all times. We changed the staff rotas to allow one staff to have a break for a few days when needed.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us the felt able to raise concerns and that they would be listened to. There were mechanisms in place for staff to speak up and a culture in place to encourage them to do so; the staff handbook had information on whistleblowing, freedom to speak up and the grievance procedure. Effective communication was in place through team meetings, daily shift handover meetings, and formal individual supervision sessions to ensure staff had regular opportunities to engage with leaders. This was also supported by policies and information supporting staff to raise concerns externally if required.

People and relatives felt their voice was heard. The provider had an up-to-date freedom to speak up and whistleblowing policy. Contact details for CQC and the local authority were identified in the service user guide. One relative told us, “When [person] came here, we were part of a package; staff support [person] but this in turn supports me. I am always made to feel welcome and there is always lots of reassurance with plenty of laughs and cuddles.” A second relative said, “Staff are very proactive in responding to any queries and any slightest problem; no problem is too small, and you can ask them anything.” People and relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and always available to chat; they also felt staff worked well as a team.

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.

Leaders provided flexible working agreements to staff to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues. Leaders took steps to ensure staff were representative of the population of people being supported. Staff told us they were treated equally by leaders.

Managers engaged with staff via individual supervisions and various staff meeting types to ensure their voices were heard. Staff were confident they could raise concerns directly with their leaders, and had received training in equality, diversity, and human rights. A staff member said, “The mangers are approachable and will help us. You can go to them with any concerns. The culture here is why it works so well; it’s like family.”

Staff had access to equality training to help them understand about protected characteristics, bullying and harassment and relevant policies were in place, in-line with current best practice guidance.

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. However, further improvements were necessary to ensure audits were more robust in identifying any gaps, and the improvements made during this inspection needed to be sustained over a longer period.

For example, we found risk assessments were not always in place for areas such as community access and the risk of choking. The provider and registered manager took immediate action to resolve these issues during this inspection and provided us with updated information during our third site visit; this gave reassurance the issues we found had been understood and promptly dealt with. A new audit schedule was also put in place, identifying a new series of daily, weekly, and monthly audit tasks.

Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet, discuss, and learn from the performance of the service. A clear organisational staff infrastructure was in place. The provider had a business continuity plan, which covered the relevant areas, in the event of an unforeseen emergency. Policies which were reviewed as part of this inspection were up to date. Daily staff shift handover meetings supported staff at all levels to work safely with people. Performance and risks were routinely discussed in staff and leaders’ meetings.

Staff were complimentary about the registered manager. A staff member told us, “Since [registered manager name] has been here, the place has got so much better, and the culture has improved. [Registered manager name] supports us all; she tells staff about things that need doing but she is supportive, and it’s not a blame culture. I feel so much better now than I did before, and it is a pleasure to come into work. It is better organised, and we are getting things done. I feel valued, supported, and included.”

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, registered manager and staff worked in partnership with local organisations and people were supported to engage with the local community, which had a positive impact on them. People’s daily lifestyle was identified in their care plans; this provided information on what each person was interested in and liked to take part in.

The provider told us, “We go to bowling and the local school visit; people go to church, and we have keep fit coming in. We also and have occupational therapists and hairdressers coming in and people go to the bowling club nearby, the cricket club and dementia club. We have held open days and summer parties, pamper days, and cheese and wine tasting days. The cook once went to [name of well-known fast-food outlet] to collect some of their boxes and we made our own food to put in them, which was healthier.”

People had the opportunity to take part in activities, and results of craft activities were displayed around the home. One person told us about a pumpkin picture they had made. The activity coordinator had a particularly good rapport with people and spoke to them with dignity and respect.

Relatives told us people were invited to go on trips out or walks to the shops. One relative told us when it was [person’s] birthday, staff put on a special birthday celebration with a buffet and birthday cake.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The providers’ systems and policies did not always ensure continuous learning and improvement. However, the provider and registered manager were very responsive to feedback from all sources, including feedback we provided during this inspection, and implemented the necessary changes promptly.

The provider assessed the care provided through audits, and by analysing feedback from people and their relatives. A relative told us, “It's such a difficult time when your parent must come into a home, but they [staff] do really go out of their way to support you as a family. The owner [provider] along with all the staff really do make a difference.”

The provider adequately trained staff and they understood the quality standards and procedures. A relative told us, “I have no concerns, and [person] would let them [staff] know if she wasn't happy, and they [staff] would soon know about it.”

All staff we spoke with confirmed leaders encouraged them to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation and actively invested time to listen and engage; we also verified this by looking at a range of meetings which had taken place throughout the year.