Outlook Care - Neave Crescent

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.

Policies were in place covering equality and diversity, and the registered manager was able to tell us how they met the needs of both staff and people with regard to this. For example, people were supported by staff with a shared cultural heritage. Staff told us it was a good place to work. A member of staff said, “I love it, everybody is friendly, I love the clients.” The registered manager told us families were always welcome, saying, “We have an open-door policy. Family can come anytime; they don’t need to inform us.”

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 service had a registered manager in place who was supported in the running of the home by a deputy manager. Staff told us they felt well supported by the management. A member of staff said, “I think [registered manager] is good, they listen. They have an open-door policy, you can call them anytime.” Another member of staff said, “I think [registered manager] is a very fair manager. I can honestly say I could go to them with any concerns, and they will take that on board. The registered manager told us they were well supported by the provider and their line manager.

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

There were opportunities for people to speak up. Residents’ meetings were held where people could discuss matters of importance to them. People were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans, so they reflected their needs. The provider had a complaints procedure so people could raise concerns formally if they wished, with a clear process to be followed by the provider. Staff also had the opportunity of speaking up, for example, through team meetings and staff supervisions.

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.

We saw that the provider promoted diversity. The staff team came from a diverse cultural background, reflective of the area in which the service was located. The provider had a policy on equality and diversity to help guide practice in this area. We saw that staff recruitment was caried out in line with good practice in relation to equality and diversity.

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

The provider had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place. For example, weekly meetings were held for managers across the provider’s care homes so they could discuss matters of mutual importance and best practice. The registered manager carried out audits, for example, on health and safety, medicines and eating and drinking. Surveys were carried out of staff, people who used the service and their relatives to gain their feedback on the service.

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 provider worked with other organisations and services. For example, they worked with relevant health and social care professionals to meet people’s needs. The registered manager told us they had some involvement with Skills for Care around staff training, an organisation that provided support around staff training in social care settings.

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.

One of the directors told us the provider was reviewing its Quality Policy. They said as a result of this, monthly monitoring visits were going to be introduced. These would be carried out by a senior member of staff to help improve the quality assurance and monitoring processes at the service. They said it was planned these would commence in May 2026.