HF Trust - Lympne Place (High Trees and The Beeches)

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance at the service.

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 was working towards ensuring there was shared vision, strategy and culture.

Staff said they were proud to work for the service and understood the aims of the service to support people to lead the best lives that they could. However, there had been some instances when staff had not acted in accordance with these values. Although the registered manager had acted to address these concerns, not all staff had consistently upheld the values of the service which had impacted on people’s care and treatment.

The results of the last staff survey were that staff were given clear expectations and were proud and motivated to work for the service. However, not everyone felt valued or recognised for their work. A number of staff had worked at the service for long periods of time and their commitment and dedication had been recognised through long service awards.

There was some inconsistency in how leaders used their skills and knowledge to embody the values and culture of the organisation.

The registered manager was responsible for the oversight of this service and a number of supported living services. They were supported by the regional manager and had a deputy manager to share the workload. They were committed to their role, knew people well and demonstrated their passion for people by taking a hands on approach with people in their care. The registered manager had many demands on them and was spending additional time at the service to support the staff team. However, they had many competing demands on their time. One relative told us, “She fights for the resident’s corner. But she has been fighting fires. She has so many things on her plate and she has to rely on others to do their job properly”.

Leaders had not always used their skills and knowledge and acted according to the provider’s policy when information of concerns had been brought to their attention. Safeguarding investigations had not always been directed by the safeguarding lead to ensure staff involved were credible, impartial investigators.

There was inconsistency in whether people felt they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they were encouraged to attend and contribute to staff meetings. Although most staff that when they spoke up they were listened to this had not always happened in practice.

There were mixed views from relatives about the responsiveness of the management team when they had any concerns. Some relatives said their views were always acted on and others that this was not always the case. The provider had reintroduced family meetings which gave relatives the opportunity to raise concerns and make suggestions about the service and organisation as a whole.

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 spoke positively about their experiences at work and told us they were treated fairly. In the last staff survey staff had feedback that the organisation valued diversity. Staff were asked if they required any reasonable adjustments which were then put into practice. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity and this was discussed in supervision and team meetings. During staff induction it was ensured that staff were aware of people’s protected characteristics.

The service did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety.

There were significant omissions in daily records relating to people’s health and safety. The provider told us there were issues with the internet which meant that staff were not always able to access records in a timely manner. The provider had implemented checks on these records and some were being completed on paper, but this was not consistent. Without consistent or complete information, the service could not effectively identify, monitor and act when required.

Lessons learned were discussed at team meetings and as a result changes had been made to make improvements. However, lessons learnt about best practice in manging potential risks and staff practice with regards to safeguarding had not been implemented consistently. Guidance in minimising the risk of people being constipated and safeguarding procedures had not always been followed.

People with anxieties which they may present verbally or physically had positive behavioural support plans (PBS). PBS isa person-centred approach to understanding and managing challenging behaviours, focusing on preventing them and improving quality of life. These plans were developed and monitored by the provider’s national PBS team. However, the team had significantly reduced in numbers so they were not able to provide the necessary level of support to staff and people. PBS plans had not been reviewed yearly as planned which meant it could not be assured guidance for staff was the most up to date and effective. The provider told us there were plans to train a staff member locally to provide this support going forwards.

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.

People were supported to play an active role within their local community. During our visit people went out to local shops and cafes. The provider knew to contact independent advocates when people did not have family or friends who could help them to make choices and decisions.

The service had partnerships with professionals from the local authority and health teams. They had a particularly close working relationship with the district nursing team who visited once a week. Staff therefore knew the team well and were able to call them to request further support when needed.

The service had received a compliment from a visiting social care professional. This professional commented, ‘Staff member x was professional and helpful. Excellent support’.

The service did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety.

There were significant omissions in daily records relating to people’s health and safety. The provider told us there were issues with the internet which meant that staff were not always able to access records in a timely manner. The provider had implemented checks on these records and some were being completed on paper, but this was not consistent. Without consistent or complete information, the service could not effectively identify, monitor and act when required.

Lessons learned were discussed at team meetings and as a result changes had been made to make improvements. However, lessons learnt about best practice in manging potential risks and staff practice with regards to safeguarding had not been implemented consistently. Guidance in minimising the risk of people being constipated and safeguarding procedures had not always been followed.

People with anxieties which they may present verbally or physically had positive behavioural support plans (PBS). PBS isa person-centred approach to understanding and managing challenging behaviours, focusing on preventing them and improving quality of life. These plans were developed and monitored by the provider’s national PBS team. However, the team had significantly reduced in numbers so they were not able to provide the necessary level of support to staff and people. PBS plans had not been reviewed yearly as planned which meant it could not be assured guidance for staff was the most up to date and effective. The provider told us there were plans to train a staff member locally to provide this support going forwards.