Stuart 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 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 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 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.

Staff confirmed the service had a person-centred culture. Staff spoke about the importance of gaining people’s trust. Other comments included, “We all want what is best for the [people]” and “Sometimes they (people) just really need attention.”

Staff told us the service was managed well. The service had regular staff meetings where staff felt comfortable to contribute. One staff member said, “We discuss how staff are managing, any ideas, also discussions about [people]. We get enough support.”

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.

The registered manager utilises their qualification of dementia to enhance the care provided and support staff members. A staff member said, “We can talk to [the registered manager] 1 to 1. I am comfortable with [the registered manager] to talk to her.” Another staff member said, “[The registered manager] always supports me with my ideas. I am well supported by [the registered manager].”

Another staff member explained, “[The registered manager] wants what is best for [people]. She knows about dementia; she has the knowledge to give advice. She’s just really really good.”

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.

The registered manager utilises their qualification of dementia to enhance the care provided and support staff members. A staff member said, “We can talk to [the registered manager] 1 to 1. I am comfortable with [the registered manager] to talk to her.” Another staff member said, “[The registered manager] always supports me with my ideas. I am well supported by [the registered manager].”

Another staff member explained, “[The registered manager] wants what is best for [people]. She knows about dementia; she has the knowledge to give advice. She’s just really really good.”

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.

The staff team was diverse and there were no barriers to recruitment or development within the service.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not always use these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. However, they acted on the best information about risk and outcomes and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

A wide range of checks and audits were undertaken regularly within the service. These were undertaken by team leaders, the registered manager and senior leaders. However, the governance systems had failed to identify the concerns found during our inspection visit. For example, recordings of daily notes were not always accurate or detailed how people may have refused care, or when people had been repositioned. One person’s care plan was not fully completed, so staff were not aware of their preferences. Information about why ‘as and when’ medicines had been administered had not been recorded, nor of their effectiveness once taken.

Staff told us the service was well-managed by the registered manager. However, they described some instability in roles and governance due to a lack of consistency in the deputy manager role. Despite robust recruitment and succession planning, this had led to frequent changes and confusion in the governance and overall responsibilities of team leaders and seniors.

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 service worked in partnership with a variety of local and community organisations. This meant that people were integrated into the community, if they wished to do so. The registered manager had used their links in further education to support staff understanding about dementia care.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

A staff member told us the registered manager had a positive approach to risk taking and, after careful consideration rarely said no. They explained that the registered manager was creative in their approach to care and how people’s quality of life was enhanced as a result. We reviewed care documents which showed how through regular reviews of individual care, discussions with staff and professionals and a trial-and-error approach, with clearly measured outcomes, people’s quality of life had improved.