Dean 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (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.

We received positive feedback overall from people about all aspects of the home. One person said, “They try to understand people. They don’t just let you sit there, they encourage you to take part.” Another person told us, “They look after us and care for us.”

The provider had a Statement of Purpose, part of which stated, ‘To deliver high quality care that is person-centred and respects all residents’ privacy and dignity.’ Based on what we found at inspection and as part of this assessment, this aim was met. The manager demonstrated a passionate approach to ensure the delivery of high-quality, compassionate care. They said, “I have tried to change the structure to make it more family friendly and more resident based. I brought in the activities co-ordinator, changed staff work times and mealtime lunches. We listen to what residents want. We try to make it more person-centred for the residents and also care about the wellbeing of the staff. I will check in with staff every day and staff morale has gone up.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care 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 manager had been in post since last October and was registering with the Commission. They were supported in their role by an operations manager who visited the home a couple of times a week. People knew who the manager was. One person said, “Yes, she’s good and so is her assistant. I think it’s well run.” Staff felt supported by the manager and senior staff. One staff member said, “I think the management team is very supportive. As far as I know they do their job well, it can’t be easy to do.”

We observed that the manager had a visible presence around the home and was accessible to staff when they needed them.

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

Staff told us they found the management team approachable and accessible. Staff supervision meetings and staff meetings enabled staff to have a voice. The manager told us, “We do have staff meetings. I will always ensure I get feedback, and if someone does not want to talk in front of others, we can have a separate meeting.” One staff member said, “Suggestions are listened to and acted upon. I’ve made suggestions about activities and residents talk about these too at their meetings. If I have any concerns I can talk about these at my 1:1 meetings and they will be listened to. The manager will tell us what we’re doing well, staffing, any problems, any improvements needed. We’re asked if we’re happy or we need any support.”

Staff were invited to complete a questionnaire at the end of last year to give their feedback and thoughts about Dean House. The results of the questionnaire were overall positive. Where concerns had been raised, these were addressed with an action plan. For example, staffing levels had been improved with the recruitment of more staff.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy and guidance for staff on how to raise concerns.

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.

In additional information we received about the home, it stated, ‘We provide an inclusive and supportive working environment where staff feel safe and respected. Reasonable adjustments are made to support protected characteristics. For example, staff are supported with religious observances such as prayer and fasting during Ramadan, and we also support staff during pregnancy by adjusting duties, allocating additional time, and adapting shift patterns where needed. We also consider and support staff who have caring responsibilities.’

Staff were positive about working at Dean House. Many had worked at the home for several years, resulting in a stable workforce. One staff member said, “I’m really enjoying it and getting to know the residents really well. Management are flexible and supportive.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The manager felt supported in their role by the operations manager and the provider who they had regular contact with. They said, “I do love my job. Some days are difficult, but I love the home. I feel supported. My residents are wonderful, and my staff have been behind me every step of the way, which is really nice.”

A range of audits measured and monitored the home overall and were used to drive improvements. We reviewed a range of audits, including health and safety, accidents and incidents/trends and analyses, monitoring records, care plans, and observation audits completed with regard to mealtimes and care. These audits were effective and useful in determining the future direction of the home and to ensure safe, consistent care that has resulted in another ‘Good’ rating in each question and for the service overall.

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.

We contacted some professionals to ask for their feedback about Dean House, but only received 1 response, which referred to the value of community connections and working in partnership to provide seamless support, including the sharing of information. It was clear the home valued the support provided by a range of health and social care professions, as evidenced through the care people received, which we observed through this inspection/assessment process.

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.

Staff were encouraged in their continual professional development through vocational qualifications and ongoing training. Staff were treated with fairness, dignity and respect and an inclusive working environment was promised, where diversity was valued. Staff spoke freely with the inspection team, as did people and their relatives. Any actions and improvements needed were identified through a robust auditing system.