Archived: Hazelwell Lodge

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 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care and support. They embodied the culture and values of the organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity and honesty.

People and their relatives told us the home was very well run. Comments included: “The manager is accessible and friendly, walks through the home and speaks to everyone. Communication is by phone or email” and “The home is very well managed by [manager’s name]. She is readily accessible and communicates well.”

The provider and management team had a clear vision and ethos, to provide high-quality, person-centred care. They had previously won several care awards. It was clear the service had been on an ‘improvement journey’ following the severe difficulties experienced in the care sector both during and after the COVID 19 pandemic. The manager told us, “Now we're in a position where we can really start to mentor and help staff develop. This has improved the care standards here. It has been a massive challenge after COVID.”

The registered manager and deputy manager attended care learning engagement meetings and the local care provider’s association network meetings. They told us these meetings “Enable us to keep a breadth of sector knowledge, changes and implementations as well as network with peers.”

The management team had considered the diversity of needs in their staff team. Various ‘team building’ events had taken place. A prayer room had been created and shift times adapted to accommodate prayer time for individual staff which met their spiritual needs. There had been a recent focus on ‘menopause in the workplace’. Staff received wellbeing calls if they were unwell and were supported on their return to work. All staff received a birthday card and gift on their employment anniversary and at Christmas.

People and their relatives were able to voice their opinions and told us they were listened to. One person told us, “I'm very happy here, nothing to complain about but if I did, I could chat to the staff about it. They always listen.” A relative said, “It’s a warm and welcoming home; highly relieved that mum is here. It’s a positive environment, a listening culture, a sense they [staff] all work together as a team.”

Staff had mixed views about culture in the staff team and in ‘speaking up’ about it. Some staff spoken with were very happy with the culture, describing it as “Fair, honest and open, like a family”. Other staff did not always feel they were treated equitably. They felt there was favouritism within the team. They believed some staff were treated better than others.

They said they did not always feel able to speak up about this, or if they did, they did not feel their voices were always heard. One staff member said, “You get a lot of cliques and that can affect the team working together. A lot of chat and unprofessionalism from some people, who can’t keep their work and personal life separate”.

This was discussed at our visits to the home and at the end of the assessment process. The manager and provider told us they would take this issue seriously and address it.

All staff, including those who did not always feel listened to, told us this issue did not affect the quality of care provided to people. We could not find any adverse impact on people’s care. However, this feeling amongst some staff remained an issue despite the manager and the provider trying to resolve this over recent months.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

There was a cohesive, effective and confident management team who ran the service. The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager. Each of the 3 areas of the home had their own head of care who oversaw care in that area.

There were quality assurance systems in place. A number of audits were carried out such as on care plans, falls, infection control practices, hospital admissions and staff training. The registered manager ‘checked in’ with people and staff at various times of the day. They used this opportunity to observe staff practice and to feedback to staff. The provider visited the home each week and spoke with people and staff. No records had been kept of these discussions but told us they would from now on.

They used quality assurance questionnaires for staff and relatives. All responses were reviewed by the registered manager who then completed summaries and action plans if necessary. The last surveys were very positive overall.

A team workforce plan was developed every January which reflected the needs of the people living at the home and the ongoing needs of support and training for staff.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.