Regent 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 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 good governance and oversight.

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 valuing each person as an individual. The provider had a set of values which they told us they promote within the service, the deputy manager said, “Our values are quality, integrity, sustainability, inclusion, diversity, compassion and caring. It’s important we have we meaningful interactions with people, we push for our new starters to ensure they take time to have a chat with people”. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered and deputy manager and described them as having an “open door” should they wish to share anything. The deputy manager had been successful in being appointed in the new home managers role and would be applying to the CQC to register in the coming months. They spoke positively about continuing to improve people’s quality of care and recognised and had started to take action where improvements were needed.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always identify where improvements were needed. There was evidence of oversight from different leader levels at the service, however, they failed to ensure improvements were being driven. For example, audits were carried out by senior leaders of the service which had not highlighted important areas which required improvement. Therefore, we could not be assured the information recorded in the quality audits are accurate, effective or able to drive the improvements needed at the service. People, relatives and staff we spoke with, shared positive comments about managers of the service. One relative told us, “Management is good, superb”, another said, “It would appear office doors are always open”. The deputy manager told us they were supported by the senior leaders who visited on a regular basis, in the event they needed support or advice they felt assured this was always available. They told us, “I get on well with the registered manager, the peripatetic manager is also really supportive, it's clear we can go through things together. We have wellbeing hubs. We have deputy manager bimonthly meetings, and we have a buddy system for 6 months. I could ring any home manager or deputy manager within the providers care home group, and they would help me the best they can”.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People and relatives had the opportunity to raise concerns, and we saw evidence when these had occurred, they had been managed appropriately. People and relatives had the opportunity to share their views of the service through regular meetings; we observed an interactive meeting with staff and people during our visit. People discussed new ideas for activities and trips out. There were discussions about menus and foods people would like, and updates in relation to the works being carried out at the service and the new appointment of the home manager. Staff had opportunities to make suggestions and contribute to the development of the service at handovers, staff meetings, surveys and through the provider's supervision procedure.

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 service promoted an inclusive and fair culture, and staff we spoke did not raise any concerns with equality. Staff spoke of working as a team to ensure people experienced good outcomes. Staff had received training in equality and diversity.

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. The provider completed a variety of audits, however these audits had not highlighted the improvements we identified during the inspection process. We saw checks had been made on documentation relating to the service, however the content and context of the information had not always been reviewed. For example, staff training requirements, PEEP’S information, and there were some inconsistencies with care planning. We found lack of detail with some clinical guidance and gaps in daily monitoring of care tasks. Additionally, visual checks had not highlighted environmental concerns and where IPC needed improving. We discussed this with the deputy manager and some senior leaders of the service who told us they would review these processes and take action to make improvements. Whilst prompt action was taken to address the issues, further time is needed to ensure additional checks are embedded to drive improvements.

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 had access to partner services such as chiropodists, dentists and opticians, and where needed people were supported to attend their appointments. We saw a strong emphasis on community partnership and integration, people accessed local services for activities and entertainment and were part of local community clubs. Local agencies visited the service regularly to offer entertainment and interactive sessions. Visiting professionals spoke positively about the service. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with those who were important to them and engage in activities which were meaningful and improved their quality of life.

We saw some good examples of where managers had taken action when they had identified an increased number of falls at the service, this led to additional oversight at leadership level to identify themes, trends and patterns to reduce further risk. However, further improvement with governance and oversight was needed to ensure improvements were identified throughout the service governance systems and processes. The deputy manager spoke of improvements they wished to make when they are in post. They told us, “It’s very homely here, there is still work to be done, although I'm positive there will be a big improvement. It’s good to have people with fresh eyes to see other things, I embrace it and reflect on it. We are looking at lessons learnt and the practice”. Whilst we were reassured throughout the inspection process, managers were open and transparent when we reported our findings and prompt action was taken. More time was needed to ensure the improvements were embedded and where improvements were needed these were identified consistently.