The Pines

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 this inspection the rating has remained 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 75 (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 a clear and shared vision, strategy, and culture, which were underpinned by transparency, equity, equality, and respect for human rights. The service also promoted diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an understanding of the challenges and needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager told us that the aim of the service was to promote people’s independence, encourage choice, support people’s preferences, and enable them to take positive risks and explore new opportunities.

Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to the provider’s vision and values and gave clear examples of how these were reflected in their day‑to‑day practice. Staff consistently told us they enjoyed working at the home and valued the support they received from managers. They explained that effective teamwork helped them to deliver good standards of care.

The registered manager was visible within the service, and staff told us they promoted an open and transparent culture where concerns could be raised with confidence. Staff demonstrated an understanding of what a closed culture might look like and told us they were assured that management would take appropriate action if any poor practice was reported.

People and their relatives told us that staff were generally kind, compassionate, and respectful in their approach.

A staff member told us, “We get along and support each other, it’s a great place to work”.

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.

The service had a registered manager in post who demonstrated a good understanding of both people’s needs and the needs of the staff team. The registered manager told us they were fully supported by senior management, who regularly visited the service to provide advice and guidance. They said senior management was readily available and consistently supportive.

The registered manager also attended monthly managers’ meetings with other managers across the region, where good practice, lessons learned, and ideas for activities were shared. Management support was readily available to staff whenever it was needed.

The registered manager spoke passionately about her vision for the home. She described her aim to create an environment where people feel safe, valued, and truly at home, supported by a staff team who are empowered, motivated, and proud of the care they provide. She also shared her aspiration for the service to be recognised for delivering outstanding, person‑centred care, where dignity, choice, and independence underpin all decisions, and where families feel confident that their loved ones receive the highest standards of care.

People and their relatives knew who the registered manager was. Staff, people, and relatives all told us that the registered manager was approachable and operated an open‑door policy. They said she was accessible, responsive, and willing to listen to and address any concerns raised.

One relative told us, “I get on very well with the manager. It's consistent staff. It's a good team. They all get on well together. I have no qualms”.

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

Staff told us they had positive relationships with the management team and felt that their views and opinions about the service were valued. We reviewed the minutes from a recent staff meeting, which showed that a range of topics had been discussed, including keyworker responsibilities, infection control, lessons learned, staff training, and incidents and accidents.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place, and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of what whistleblowing meant. They were aware of the provider’s internal processes, including relevant contact details, and told us they felt confident to raise concerns at any time. Staff said they were assured that any concerns reported to the registered manager would be taken seriously and acted upon. People using the service and their relatives also told us they felt able to raise concerns with the registered manager if required. One relative told us, “They send out a questionnaire every 6 months. I’m always open and honest with my answers. I do give good feedback”.

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 valued diversity within their workforce and worked to promote an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for staff. The registered manager told us that flexible shift patterns were offered to support parents with young children, which enabled the service to employ staff who may otherwise have been excluded from the workforce. They also respected staff members’ religious, cultural, and personal preferences.

Staff described an inclusive culture where diversity was valued and discrimination was not tolerated. They told us the provider listened to their individual needs and made reasonable adjustments to support them to carry out their roles effectively. Examples included flexible working arrangements and phased returns to work following periods of ill health.

We saw appropriate risk assessments in place for staff with dyslexic traits and for pregnant staff, and the service promoted LGBTQ+ inclusion. Staff had been recruited from a range of diverse backgrounds that reflected the local community.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The registered manager carried out regular audits across the service. These included audits of medicines, finances, the environment, staff training, health and safety, service leadership, and incidents. Additional checks covered staff rotas, training records, fire drills, and incidents and accidents.

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.

The registered manager worked in partnership with a range of health and social care professionals. They told us they worked closely with the local authority commissioning team. They said any advice the local authority provided was always helpful.

The service worked proactively with a range of external organisations to support people, strengthen community links, and improve outcomes. Staff told us they could make referrals to health and social care professionals through the management and nursing teams, and relatives confirmed that relevant professionals were actively involved in people’s care.

Feedback received from health and social care professionals during the assessment process was positive. Professionals described effective working relationships with the service and a shared commitment to improving people’s health, wellbeing, and quality of life.

The provider worked in partnership with people, their relatives, and professionals to promote coordinated care. Information was shared appropriately with relatives when health‑related decisions were required, and staff told us they had access to specialist advice through established partnerships with healthcare services.

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.

Staff were well supported to develop their skills, and several staff members told us they had progressed into more senior roles, which they viewed positively. The provider had processes in place to regularly review staff training needs and career aspirations, ensuring staff were offered ongoing opportunities for professional development.