Leofric Lodge

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 71 (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.

People told us they were happy living at Leofric Lodge. Comments included, “I feel very happy here. It’s a nice friendly place,” and “It’s a home from home and I have lots of friends here.”

Staff spoke positively about working at the service and felt well supported in their roles. One staff member told us, “I enjoy working here. We all come together; it’s a good team. We care about the people we support.” Another staff member said, “I like the environment, staff, and caring for the people, it’s like family.”

Processes to involve people and staff in developing the culture included seeking people's feedback, on the quality of care and service provided., through meetings and questionnaires. Where suggestions were made, action was taken.

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.

People knew who the management team were, and how to contact them. Comments included, “The managers are approachable and always getting involved. You can say what you’ve got to say but I have never had reason to raise any concerns or make a complaint,” and “The manager is always asking me if everything is all right.”

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and told us they felt valued and supported by the management team. One staff member said, “The managers are always happy to help, and I feel comfortable speaking to them."

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

Staff felt confident to raise any issues or concerns with the management team if needed. One staff member told us, “If there were any concerns the manager would act on it straight away. It would be fully reported to keep the person safe.” The provider also held regular team meetings, where staff had the opportunity to raise concerns and offer suggestions. The registered manager understood the need to be open and honest when things went wrong in line with the responsibilities under the duty of candour.

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 told us they felt included in decisions about the service and enjoyed working for the provider. All staff had received equality and diversity training. The provider’s policies promoted equality and diversity, and a diverse staff team has been recruited to support people living at the service.

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.

There were some systems and processes in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. However, these did not always identify where improvements were needed. For example, care plan reviews had not identified some care plans did not provide staff with the level of, and up to date information they needed to provide safe care. For example, one person had a medicine that had been discontinued by their GP, but this was still listed in their medicines support care plan. Further, within the care plan it stated this person had no faith belief, but later it recorded they did, and staff told us this person liked time to pray.

The registered manager did not always have effective oversight of important documents. For example, we saw staff had recorded actions to be taken in the ‘handover book,’ these included supporting people to contact their GP. Most had no entry to confirm whether the action had been taken. When we discussed this with the registered manager, they told us they were unaware of what was recorded in the handover book as they had no oversight of it.

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 worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure people had the best outcomes for their health and wellbeing. People confirmed this. One person said, “Staff keep an eye on you and make sure you are okay. They write everything down, what I’ve eaten, they are very observant."

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 felt supported by the provider and spoke about opportunities available for their personal development. One staff member told us, “My induction was very good, and I shadowed experienced staff to get to know people and their needs. The team leaders were very supportive.”

Staff recorded incidents and accidents. These were reviewed by the management team and action taken to prevent reoccurrence. Any lessons learnt were discussed in team meetings. The district manager was open to our feedback for further learning and improvement.