Anley Hall Nursing 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 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.

The registered manager had a clear shared vision and culture that focused on sustaining and building on recent improvements, so people consistently received good quality care. Leaders and staff worked hard to have a collective determination to continue on a positive trajectory and maintain high standards of care.Staff and managers shared a strong sense of purpose, describing how they wanted people to experience the service as a safe, caring and homely environment. Staff spoke positively about working at the service, and with stable, long‑standing staff team who were proud of the care they provided. One relative told us they would “certainly recommend the home”, explaining it was “so clean, caring, and it appears the staff really want to be here.”Leaders used regular people’ meetings and relatives’ groups to hear people’s views and shape how the home was run. People attended weekly meetings and relatives described ongoing sessions that had evolved into a support group, with the manager attending to listen and contribute. People and relatives told us care plans were of high quality and reflected what mattered to them, which supported a person‑centred culture.

Leaders at the service were experienced, approachable and generally visible, and they fostered an inclusive and compassionate leadership style. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager, deputy manager and clinical lead, and described the provider as a good employer who invested in their development. Staff also reported there was a diverse range of cultures and backgrounds within the team and said there had been no form of discrimination.Relatives knew who was in charge and spoke confidently about the manager and deputy. One relative told us they felt any concern would be “dealt with very professionally by the manager.” Staff said leaders encouraged them to progress, including supporting internationally‑recruited staff to achieve UK registration and enabling staff to gain additional qualifications.Leaders were described as open and responsive. Staff told us they could approach managers at any time and were confident they would be listened to. Governance records showed leaders maintained oversight of key aspects of the service, including staffing levels, training, environmental safety and the quality of care planning.

The registered manager promoted an open culture where staff felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be acted on. Staff told us they could speak up to leaders without fear of negative consequences and felt their views were taken seriously. This was supported by regular team meetings and one to one supervisions, where records showed discussions about practice, safeguarding and communication.Leaders had systems to capture and respond to concerns, including a complaints process, safeguarding referrals and staff disciplinary procedures where this was necessary. Complaints were clearly recorded and responded to in a professional manner, and relatives told us that although they had not needed to complain, they were sure any issues would be handled promptly and respectfully by the manager.People and relatives had multiple routes to share feedback, including weekly people’ meetings and regular relatives’ groups. Staff and relatives said leaders were approachable and visible in the home.

The provider promoted an inclusive working environment where staff from different backgrounds felt welcomed and valued. Leaders described, and staff confirmed, that there was a diverse range of cultures and experiences within the team and staff said there had been no discrimination. Staff spoke positively about working at the service, the provider and leaders. Staff, without exception, told us there was no form of discrimination at the service.

Governance systems were generally effective and supported the delivery of safe and good quality care, although some aspects of documentation required strengthening. Leaders completed a wide range of regular audits, including care plans, medicines, infection prevention and control, dining experience, mattresses, call bells and environmental safety. These audits usually showed good compliance and helped identify issues that needed attention.However, actions from audits were not always clearly tracked or dated, particularly for care plan audits where it was not always evident when actions were completed or by whom. Similarly, while the registered manager reviewed individual incidents, there was no routine monthly analysis to identify patterns and demonstrate lessons learned. Overall, governance arrangements were effective but required further development to fully evidence and sustain ongoing improvement.

The provider worked well with health and social care partners to support people’s needs and promote continuity of care. Staff and leaders described positive working relationships with the local GP practice, ambulance service and the local authority. Staff told us they felt confident recognising when people’s needs were changing and when to escalate to external professionals. The local authority reported they had a positive relationship with the service and had no areas of concern.Records showed evidence of regular professional involvement for people, such as GP input and other health professionals as required, particularly around end of life care where joint working supported dignified, responsive care.The service was also embedded in the local community with regular visits from the local church and volunteers who supported activities such as reading, “knit and natter” and social interaction. People and relatives spoke positively about trips out on the home’s minibus.Relatives valued the weekly meetings that had developed into a support group, providing mutual support and a forum to engage with the service. While some of these partnership activities were not captured in formal partnership plans, they reflected a service that worked constructively with external professionals and the wider community to enhance people’s experience.

The registered manager was committed to learning and improvement and responded promptly when shortfalls were identified, although learning was not always captured in a structured way. During the inspection, leaders and staff acted on feedback immediately. Leaders showed a commitment to continual learning, development and providing high quality care.