Attlee Court

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 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 71 (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.

There was a positive culture at the service. People, relatives and staff told us they felt confident that if they wanted to raise any issues, they would be listened to.

The provider’s policies and procedures in place made clear the vision and values that was expected to be in place. Staff understood their responsibility to provide care to people, in line with these expectations.

The management told us about the plans that had been developed to improve the service, as well as ongoing improvements to continue making the home a safe and comfortable place for people. The nominated individual told us about their commitment to continue improving the service and learn from feedback.

There were effective communication systems with staff through handover meetings, team meetings and supervisions.

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 management team were knowledgeable about people’s needs, the particular challenges and achievements of the service, were clear on their priorities.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the managers and they were approachable. A staff member told us, “They are spot on, very hard working and try to support us the best that they can.”

The provider understood their obligations for submitting notifications to CQC, as required by law.

CCTV was used in communal areas. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place in relation to this.

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

Staff were encouraged to share their views during team meetings, supervisions and staff surveys.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place at the service and staff were confident to use it. There was information about how to follow the policy in staff areas.

The registered manager told us they had an open door system and staff could approach them at any time; during our visits, we observed this happening.

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 were policies and procedures in place to ensure the provider met their legal obligations to staff and work towards a fair and inclusive culture.

In our conversations with staff, they told us they felt team work and management support was good and we were not given any examples of staff feeling discriminated against, if they had protected characteristics.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and overall there were good governance systems in place. But we found improvements were requires in the quality assurance system.

There were several quality assurance systems in place, we found some had been effective in identifying and addressing areas for improvement and others had not. For example, medication audits completed before our inspection had identified issues with the temperature of the medication room; at this inspection we did not find issues in this area. However, those same medication audits had not identified the issues found with the quality of some records. Managers were completing walkarounds on a regular basis , but they had not identified the need to review staffing levels on one of the units.

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. This was supported by positive feedback from partners and visiting healthcare professionals.

In one of our visits, we observed a local community group who supported people with learning disabilities develop a singing activity at the home. People, staff and visitors enjoyed this activity.

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 registered manager told us staff were encouraged to share ideas and explore new approaches to enhance person-centred care. They told us how staff taken then initiative to support a person living with dementia in a creative way to ensure their personal care needs were met.

The management team were very responsive to inspection findings and feedback, and acted or told us the actions they would take in response to our feedback.