Aire 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.At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.The service was in breach of legal regulationfor governance in relation to care plans, risk assessment and other care records.

This service scored 57 (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 which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The service provided evidence of staff meetings and resident meetings, however feedback from people and staff was mixed. Some comments included “They used to have resident and relative meetings, very informative meetings, but since the manager has left, they have not had one. They were usually monthly for relatives and residents” and “The home does have staff meetings, but most of the time I am unable to attend due to working on the floor and not having anybody to cover me, or I am off duty and will randomly get a text message informing me of a meeting which is too short notice for me to attend. The meetings that we miss we do not get informed of what was discussed in the meetings.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. There were some systems in place to capture the views of staff, however the provider was not demonstrating how they were listening and responding to staff. Staff feedback was mixed in relation to regular supportive supervision. One comment was, “I cannot remember if I have done a supervision since starting my job as a care assistant. One of the team leaders told me they will be completing my supervision shortly. I don't know if the supervisions are supportive as I don't recall ever doing one.”

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. People using the service did not raise any concerns however, staff feedback was mixed. Some comments included “Yes I feel I could raise concerns” and “ I really don't think highly of the management team within the home due to not having a permanent manager, also I feel that [staff member] can be difficult to talk to, especially if you have concerns regarding anything to do with the residents, staff or the home itself. I don't have much faith in the management at the moment, so I don't raise concerns unless I really need to.” The provider had a whistleblowing policy and posters up in the home. In the reception area there were leaflets, requesting people’s views of the service.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The training matrix provided during our assessment did not show staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training. The home did have posters up to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

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. Some audits were taking place; however, the management team were not completing audits specific to peoples care plans, risk assessments, daily records, and monitoring charts for skin integrity, nutrition and hydration. Audit was not adequate to detect issues we identified. This placing people at risk of harm or injury. Records were not always accurately recorded or in real time. This was due to staff not having regular or easy access to a device to record on the electronic system.

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. We found evidence of the service working in communication with the Local Authority.We found one occasion where the home had not contacted a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT).

The manager told us that they were aware of how to report, safeguard and investigate events and incidents and gather lessons learnt from incidents to continually improve safeguarding, complaints, accident and incidents had been logged, investigated and responded to. These were also reviewed to support lessons learnt. The required statutory notifications to CQC had been submitted. The management team had started to action and respond to concerns identified during our assessment.