Kirkwood Court Also known as 1-143250927

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.

This service scored 61 (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. Staff told us the culture within Kirkwood Court had improved and staff were committed to providing personalised care. A staff member said, “(The atmosphere) is better than what it used to be. I am happy working here now.” Another staff member said, “I am impressed with how they treat the residents.”

Leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty. The provider had acted to restructure and stabilise the management arrangements in the home. Staff told us there had a high turnover of managers, which had impacted on the care provided. They told us they now had a permanent manager and improvements were being made. A staff member said, “[Manager] is very nice, very helpful and very encouraging. She wants the best for the residents.” Another staff member said, “I am seeing a lot of improvement, things were not in order when I came.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard. People and relatives told us they felt able to speak up and they were listened to. A person said, “I would speak to the manager, she is a lovely lady. Any complaints are seen to.” A relative commented, “They are very open, so accommodating. They listen and resolve things.”

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. A staff member said, “They are trying their best, they look after the staff.”

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. There had been a lack of consistent management oversight, which meant shortfalls had not been resolved in a timely way. This included shortfalls in the quality of care records and on-going issues with the laundry. The provider had acted to address the inconsistent management oversight and was making improvements. However, some issues were still outstanding when we inspected.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The lack of consistent management oversight meant the quality of care had deteriorated. The provider had acted on this and improvements were being made.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The provider had not always acted quickly enough to learn lessons, such as addressing issues with the laundry which was having a negative impact on people and staff.