Driftwood 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture. Although the provider had a number of strategies in place to embed a culture and vision for the service, some staff commented about a division within the staff team. It was clear from discussions with the provider and minutes of recent staff meetings, that the management team were aware of this division and were taking steps to address it.

Staff we spoke with acknowledged things were definitely improving. Although there was an element of division in the team, we found the staff as a whole were focussed on the people who used the service and clear about their priorities with regard to their care.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always fully embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

When we carried out our onsite visit we found the service had recently undergone some significant leadership changes. The manager was absent from the service, and the deputy manager was in day-to-day charge. The provider and management team had identified a number of concerns relating to poor oversight in recent months and our findings confirmed this. We saw the provider was taking appropriate action to put staff into key management and oversight roles to ensure the future safety and quality of the service. The deputy manager demonstrated a good understanding of the issues faced by the service and had strong management skills. The deputy manager was well supported by the regional management team and provider, and plans were in place to improve the areas of poor oversight we identified.

We received mixed feedback about speaking up and staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Although the majority of staff were positive about the opportunities to speak up, either in person or anonymously, some staff did not feel confident to raise concerns. We had received negative feedback about this from a number of staff prior to our onsite visit. Staff meeting minutes, whilst being clear, did not always demonstrate a two-way dialogue and the tone was very direct which may have inhibited some people from speaking up.

However, other staff were very positive about their experiences of speaking up with one saying, ‘I had to do this once, and they handled it really well.’ Another person also raised a concern and told us, 'Armscare [provider] have been supportive.I had a problem once and they dealt with it straight away.’ The service had a staff welfare officer and the provider told us they wanted to ensure everyone felt confident to speak up in the future.

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.

There was a diverse workforce including a high number of staff sponsored from overseas. These staff told us they felt valued and well supported. The provider had worked to help these staff settle into their new roles and new country and this was ongoing. There was a strong focus on supporting all staff, especially those with caring responsibilities and those dependent on public transport. Shift patterns had been reviewed to take staff needs into account where possible, without impacting the delivery of care.

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.

The provider’s processes for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were not robust. A suite of audits had not identified the issues we found relating to medicines, infection control and the management of risk including the environment. Some audits had not always been completed with integrity and so any shortfalls had not been picked up or actioned. The provider had independently identified the majority of this and had already begun to take action to address the structure of the management team and regional oversight of quality and safety. However, despite this response, the interim measures had still not assured medicines were always safely administered and all areas of the service clean.

Although there were clearly some issues to address, the provider was quick to acknowledge any failings and began work immediately to address the issues raised by this assessment process. They were open and honest in their response and welcomed the feedback we gave them.

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. Information sharing and communication with key partners was effective. Professionals gave positive feedback about this, and we observed good partnership working during our onsite assessment visit.

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.

The provider was focussed on continuing improvement of the service and had an ongoing plan for this. They were setting up a local training facility to increase the opportunity of face-to-face learning for staff and hoped to open this up to other local services. Staff from the service were being put forward for Train the Trainer training to enable them to deliver training to staff.

The provider had carried out co-production trials with a tech company of an AI monitoring system aimed to reduce falls by identifying certain sounds and alerting staff. This had been introduced in other services owned by the provider and had reduced falls. The provider was soon to install this at Driftwood House.