Long Eaton View 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

The provider had policies and procedures in place which reflected the values of the service. These values were embedded in the training provided to staff, and the conduct of staff and leaders. We found many staff and leaders had vast experience of working in care, and we also met new and experienced staff who were passionate about supporting people to live the best possible life.

The new provider advised us of their intention to introduce new roles, including a clinical manager. Staff and leaders we spoke with were positive in their feedback about the new provider.

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.

Staff told us that they feel comfortable in approaching leaders and they felt supported in their roles.

The registered manager and assistant manager had been in their roles since the care home first opened and had overseen key decisions, including selecting the original furnishings. Their long-standing involvement meant they had a strong understanding of the service.

Senior care assistants and care coordinators had clearly defined roles, working in partnership. Care coordinators took responsibility for liaising with external professionals and updating care plans, whereas senior carers were more focused on administering medicines, supervising care staff and the running of each shift. This meant that there were several leaders on shift at any time, working across the building, ensuring staff were supervised and supported.

Some relatives told us that they did not feel that the communication was effective from leaders. One relative said, “I go to the staff if I have any problems, rather than management”. Others told us that they did not have any concerns about being listened to.

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

The provider had a policy in place which guided staff on how to speak up. The provider had a freedom to speak up guardian in place, which enabled staff who wanted to raise concerns had a named staff member who they could go to in confidence to speak with. There were also external contact numbers such as CQC, that staff were advised to call if their concern was too sensitive to share internally. This reduced the risk of a closed culture by ensuring that staff could reach out to other organisations to report concerns.

Staff we spoke to told us they felt comfortable to raise any concerns with leaders and did not worry that this would have negative consequences for them.

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 provider employed a diverse workforce and made reasonable adjustments to accommodate staff needs. For example, an office onsite was designated as a prayer room where staff were able to practice their religious beliefs whilst at work. Risk assessments were made for staff who were pregnant, with regular review meetings held to look at reasonable adjustments that could be made to support the safety of the staff member.

One staff member told us, “I've worked in care 28 years and this place is really good”. Another said, “Managers are really supportive”.

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, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There were gaps identified in monitoring records relating to people’s nutritional intake and skin repositioning, and gaps in the recording of oral hygiene. This did not impact upon the care that people received, and leaders told us that this may just be human error and that they would take action was to make sure there were no gaps in recording in future.

The provider had a robust business continuity plan in place which advised what staff and leaders should do in the case of an emergency, with multiple scenarios considered. This meant that in the event of a major event such as a fire or flooding, there was a plan to keep people safe and provide continuity to the service.

Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, and the systems in place ensured that supervision was offered in a timely way. This meant that leaders were able to monitor the performance of staff and ensure that they were providing quality care.

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.

External professionals including the local frailty nursing team, district nurses, and GPs, visited the service regularly. Meetings were held regularly, with any changes to people’s care being recorded in their care plan and communicated to staff through shift handover books and meetings.

Leaders encouraged staff to take people out into the local community and for walks along the canal. The care home’s close proximity to the town centre made it possible for staff to support people to access this without the need for public transport.

The provider had close ties with the local hospice and funeral directors, working together in partnership to improve the quality of care for people.

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.

A daily meeting held at 10am included a form which leaders completed on a daily basis which analysed every aspect of the care home running. For example, the form included prompting questions for staff on each floor of the care home such as “Is there anything the manager needs to be aware of?”, “Are there any kitchen issues?” and “Are there any maintenance issues?” among other questions. These questions allowed leaders to identify any issues and take action to make improvements in that area.

The provider offered staff the opportunity to train themselves to deliver training to other colleagues. This allowed members of staff to pass on their skills and knowledge to less experienced staff. Staff were encouraged to attend extra training sessions where they had an interest or there was an identified opportunity to improve the quality of care. For example, some staff had recently received training from a local funeral directors which was designed to improve staff’s knowledge of how to support people at the end of their lives and support families following the person passing away. This showed that the provider was committed to improving quality by providing training to staff which went beyond mandatory training.

Staff told us that they felt encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the care home. One staff member told us “Leaders listen to you if you have any ideas, they don’t just dismiss you”.