Myrtle Cottage

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

During our assessment of this quality statement we found there were governance, management and accountability arrangements in place. Some systems to assess and improve the quality of care and drive improvement were not always effective. Staff understood their role and responsibilities. Managers and leaders could account for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us, they felt valued and supported by the management team. One staff member told us, they have been supported with career progression by the registered manager. Another staff member told us, the manager gave them positive feedback on their performance which motivated them. Staff were very positive about the leadership understood the roles in the service and who they needed to ask for support on different matters. All were very positive about the involvement and response from leaders when support, guidance and decision making was needed. Staff told us, they are encouraged to share their ideas for improvement during team meetings. One staff member told us, they had suggested to the manager that another female night staff member would be beneficial to people, the manager then employed a female staff member. They told us, they felt listened too. The registered manager told us how they involved people in the service. They told us, “Send out surveys and get feedback. They have the ‘our voice’ meetings monthly which gives the people we support the chance to say what they would change. Just getting a feel for what we think the people we support would like. With decorating their bedroom, show them pictures, take the people we support to the shop to choose paint. We also have a complaints policy up and staff know we have an open door policy and that we will also feedback to them”.

Improvements were needed to strengthen internal quality monitoring procedures. The shortfalls in recruitment records had not been identified by the provider. Medicines audits were completed regularly, however; these did not pick up the concerns we found with PRN records. An action plan was not always present at the end of the audit to drive improvements and staff training had not been completed when identified as a requirement through an audit. The registered manager had taken action to make improvements following the inspection. Team meetings took place at regular intervals and offered staff the opportunity to give feedback on the service.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.