Archived: Ideal 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 the same..

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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

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 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.Staff we spoke to were positive about the support they received from management, one member of staff told us, “Management are very supportive of my role and I know I can approach them anytime and they will help”.People knew the management team and were positive about them. One person said, “I see [name of manager] all the time, they always comes and says hello to me”.

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.Staff we spoke to were positive about the support they received from management, one member of staff told us, “Management are very supportive of my role and I know I can approach them anytime and they will help”.People knew the management team and were positive about them. One person said, “I see [name of manager] all the time, they always comes and says hello to me”.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns to management and felt confident they would be listened to, and concerns would be acted on. People and relatives told us the same, one person said, “I can go to the manager if I am unhappy with anything”.

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 felt they were treated as individuals and their needs were taken into consideration, such as shift times being arranged to fit in with commitments.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and goodgovernance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.At our last inspection we identified the providers quality checks needed improvement to identify and drive good care. Whilst we saw that the scope of audits had been increased, further strengthening was required to ensure they were effective at identifying where improvements were required.

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 were aware of other professionals involved in people’s care and worked alongside them when needed.The management team expressed an open and positive attitude to receiving support and understood how and where they could access support. Staff told us they were usually able to support people to access the community. A person asked for support with this, and this was provided immediately.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the service and local systems.Systems were in place for learning and improvement. These included resident meetings, team meetings, surveys, supervisions and audits. However, they had not resulted in improvements in all of the areas identified by the provider’s audits as already stated in this report.