Higher Park 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 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.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the governance and oversight of the service.

This service scored 43 (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.

The service had regular team meetings, and handovers between each shift, to support the service team in working together. However, there was no provider strategy about the type of service they wanted to deliver to a good standard. For example, there was no shared vision or set of values that the provider, managers and staff were working towards.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Service leaders told us they cared about people and the service and wanted to get it right. However, we did not see that care reflected in how the service was run as we found multiple issues that affected peoples experience and safety.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff feedback showed they felt comfortable with the management team and they said they would be able to raise concerns to the management team about the quality and safety of the service.However, the staff had not done so in such a way that the service had improved. They said the management of the service had not been as effective in driving improvement as needed and that the recent addition of a new manager might improve the service.

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 registered manager and provider had delivered a supportive and inclusive working environment for the staff.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The governance of the service had not addressed the failures in the quality and safety of the service. Though there were some audits being carried out these had failed to identify the issues we found with cleanliness, the environment, recruitment, staffing levels, care planning and risk assessment. Therefore, opportunities to identify and then improve the safety and quality of the service had been missed.

The registered manager was completing some checks of the service but there were no checks of quality and safety recorded by the provider. We fed this back to the provider, and they said they would make improvements in this area to support the registered manager. These failings in governance systems and processes meant people were not getting the quality of service they deserved.

The administration of the service was poor and there was confusion in the storage and maintenance of service records. For example, on our second visit we requested records of weekly fire alarm tests, fire door checks, fire extinguisher checks and emergency lighting checks. None of these records were provided to us.

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 service had not engaged effectively with the community, and partners in the health and social care system to share learning and by doing so, improve the quality of their service. However, some partnerships with the health and social care system were operating adequately. For example the service said they were working well with the local health system in taking people directly discharged from the local hospital into their care.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service had not obtained knowledge to be aware of best practice in the delivery of a registered care service. As a result, the service had not been learning or improving.

The service had a system of surveying for people and relatives to give feedback on the service. However, receiving this feedback had not led to the necessary improvement in the service.