Malden 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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 79 (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 team upholds the company’s values and understands their purpose. The culture in the service was open, and staff were happy working at the home. There was a feeling of cohesiveness within the home. The team worked in harmony.

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.

Overall, everyone we spoke with without exception had very positive feedback about the home, how it is managed and how well the staff meet people’s needs. There were clear roles and responsibilities in the teams. There were clear governance systems in place. The quality of care was checked, and improvements were made as a result of audits.

Senior managers had a good oversight of the home. Accidents, incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns were investigated fully and risks identified mitigated. Managers led by example and were clearly visible throughout the home. The home fosters good partnership working and community links. This benefits people who use the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There were several opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give feedback to the provider. In addition, there was a whistle blowing policy in place to offer staff guidance in this area if needed. Everyone we spoke with told us they would make a complaint if they needed to. One relative said, “I would certainly know how to make a complaint if I had 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. Staff told us they felt valued and could discuss any concerns with the managers. Staff had training in equality and diversity and Neurodiversity. This meant the team had a good understanding of the impact of inequalities and how they would affect people.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Robust, effective systems were in place to check the quality of care in the home. Records reviewed showed the provider prioritised quality assurance. Meetings were held at each level. Actions were recorded and followed up. Improvement and development plans were in place. This meant people could be confident that their health and well-being was a priority. Analysis of accidents, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts was done to ensure there were no trends or patterns to follow up.

The provider shared with us some examples of how they had been working on initiatives to save energy and costs. For example, they installed solar panels, turning off lights and reduce heat to save energy, use of led lighting and encouraging the team to carpool were possible.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services workedseamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for

improvement.The registered manager told us, “We have good relationships with the local church, schools, day centres, local care providers, and charities. We have worked previously and held many different fundraising days for Prostate Cancer, Hospice and the Matt Hampson foundation.” The provider also had links with the local church and other community resources. The church came to the home to provider services for anyone in the home. This was particularly welcomed by anyone who could not attend the church. In addition, the church also joined the home for other events such as carol signing and family days. Events were held throughout the year for example, a family day, Christmas and Halloween parties as well as other festivals.

We visit the dementia cafe for afternoon tea, support many local art groups, scouts and school initiatives.”Overall, people benefit from the links that have been established in their community. People and relatives told us they were very happy with the home and said they felt there was lots of engagement and meaningful activities to suit everyone.

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. Accidents and incidents were analysed to look for trends and themes to prevent re-occurrence. Improvement plans were in place considering all aspects of service delivery. Actions were recorded and followed up. There was an open and honest culture within the home fostered by the management team. Improvement plans were realistic and had considered all the feedback they received from people and relatives. The provider had won awards about how they had supported people at the end of their life. They had followed a nationally recognised framework which demonstrated their commitment to supporting people with sensitivity. They had also achieved recognition for how they managed the quality of the care being delivered. They were able to show how improvements had been made and what impact this had on people and their relatives.