Overslade 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 68 (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 spoke positively about working at the service and felt well supported in their roles. One staff member who had worked at the home for many years said “That should tell you how good it is to work here. We are a big family.” Another staff member told us, [Manager] wants the best care for residents living here. They are always approachable.” They talked about changes at the home and said, “I feel we have a good staff now. We have meetings at 11am each day but can share concerns at any time.” Staff told us they were kept up to date with developments and changes at the home through staff meetings and handovers.

The manager told us the provider’s values were displayed in the reception area of the home and were also on the units. They advised staff were aware of the need to abide by them. These included acting with respect and integrity.

The provider had leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support to create a positive culture within the home. Whilst leaders had the skills knowledge and experience to lead effectively, there were areas where processes needed to be fully embedded into the service to demonstrate high standards of care were consistently maintained.

The manager told us how they ensured staff were supported and how management staff and care staff worked together to ensure people’s needs were met. They told us, “We organise the day, look at what happened the previous day, new admissions, what we need to put in place. The chef and activities staff are made aware of new admissions. Staff on the unit are made aware. We discuss those in hospital why it happened where it happened. Deaths. Positive feedback and negative feedback.” However, we found areas of improvement were needed to quality assurance processes, some of which had not been effectively addressed from audit checks completed. For example, it had been identified that staff did not always enter information into records in ‘real time’. This continued to be an issue and meant it was not always possible to confirm people received care and support in a timely manner.

Staff told us they felt valued and managers were visible and gave them support and guidance. One staff member said, “I do feel valued because I am asked what I think about things.” Another staff member said they were able to get good advice from the manager because of their nursing background. They told us, “We all work together” and were treated respectfully by the manager whose “informal approach” meant any concerns about people’s health and welfare were resolved quickly. The staff member told us, “It does not feel like a boss relationship, we all work together.”

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

People told us they felt confident to speak with staff or the manager if they had any concerns.

Staff felt confident to raise any issues or concerns with the management team if needed and felt they would be listened to. One staff member said, “[Manager] is definitely approachable, and I will go to her. She will call you back, she will reply.”

Information about policies to support a culture of speaking up such as whistleblowing and complaints were available within the home for people and staff to access. A staff member told us, “We can get the whistleblowing policy on-line and we all know what to do if we are not listened to.”

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.

Equality and diversity were considered in regards to the workforce. The manager told us, “We have employees from different religions and cultures in the home. We are a multicultural team, and we are like a big family. We respect each other and support each other. We have residents from different cultures, and we work with them so we can support them in best way possible.”

Staff described how they supported one another so that no staff member felt excluded. For example, 1 staff member told us how they spoke slowly and maintained good eye contact with those staff whose first language was not English to help effective communication. Staff told us how religious celebration days were taken into account when shift rotas were complied. For example, some staff requested to have a Saturday off to do prayers.

Staff completed training on equality and diversity in the workplace and also had access to the providers policies and procedures for guidance if needed.

One staff member said, “[manager] does come into our area of the home to see if people and staff are ok.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They aimed to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. Some systems were not fully effective, and some records were unclear to show the provider always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

People and relatives gave mixed reviews about the governance of the service. Comments included, “It’s so lovely here, family can visit whenever they like, and we are made so welcome,” and “I do sometimes see the manager walk by. She will wave and say hello to me. Sometimes she will pop in and speak to me” and “I’ve not had a questionnaire, and I’ve not been to any relative meetings,” and “I don’t go to any meetings. I don’t know if there are any.” The manager told us there was a ‘suggestion box’ in the reception area of the home and they welcomed and suggestions.

Staff spoke of being given guidance by management staff so they understood their roles and responsibilities. For example, staff members told us they were asked to focus on ensuring people had enough to eat and drink. At lunchtime we saw a staff member checking this happened. However, we found food and fluid charts were not always completed at the time food and drinks were given which meant it was not clear people received food and drinks at regular intervals. Whilst the provider had also identified this to be an issue, actions taken to address this had not been fully effective.

Care plans had not always been completed in good time and were not always accurate. This meant the audit process was not fully effective. For example, 1 person had a “pressure sore” which they had developed 8 weeks prior to their admission. A care plan had not been completed for 7 days to ensure this was managed safely and consistently. One person’s profile record stated they had an air mattress and when we checked, this was not the case.

Staff told us spot checks were completed to ensure they had understood their training such as manual handling checks to make sure they assisted people to move safely. However, some staff were not clear in their responses when asked about people on fluid restrictions and those on thickening agents used to help prevent people from choking or aspiration. This meant competency checks may not always have been fully effective.

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.

Staff understood the importance of sharing information with health professionals to ensure they received the right care to support their health and wellbeing. Contact was made with health and social care professionals for advice when appropriate to manage any risks identified and this was recorded.

The provider supported links with family friends and local communities.

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 completed regular training to support learning and enable them to deliver safe care. They felt confident to raise any concerns with management staff and to learn from any mistakes. Staff had regular opportunities to share information with management which helped to identify any learning needs. For example, 1 staff member told us how they had been informed about an unprofessional approach to answering a telephone call at another of the provider’s services. This had been shared with staff to ensure this didn’t happen again.

The manager told us lessons were learnt when things went wrong and how they ensured staff worked in accordance with the providers expectations. They told us, “We have regional trainers who do staff observation and we also observe staff on the units. We monitor the training with support from the regional trainer. We observe mealtimes and complete audits.” They went on to say that staff had supervisions, and all staff had their competencies assessed to ensure any learning was identified and acted upon.”