Roseside

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At the last inspection we found the provider was in breach of regulation in relation to good governance. At this inspection we found the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

This service scored 75 (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.

The culture of the service was positive, and it was evident both the provider and the management team were committed to a shared vision and strategy of achieving high-quality person-centred care for people. Staff understood and practiced this culture. One member of staff told us, “Everything is great – there is a good culture.”

Staff told us it was a nice place to work and that the provider was supportive and responsive.

The registered manager interacted with people, their relatives and staff at every opportunity and the atmosphere in the home was relaxed and stimulating.

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 registered manager was supported by the provider, to help aid more effective leadership. Governance tools and audits and processes were in place to help provide effective oversight to help deliver safe care.

In addition, each department such as catering, maintenance and nursing staff had their own leads, which helped provide increased oversight and accountability in those areas.

We received positive feedback about the manager from people, relatives and staff. One member of staff commented, “I love it here, I love my job, I feel very supported by the managers, they are good managers.”

The registered manager had a visible presence in the home. They carried out visits during the weekend and at night-time to ensure they maintained a relationship and had oversight of night and weekend staff. We discussed the idea of increasing night-time visits following feedback from one person about the availability of staff.

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

The provider had processes in place to gather people’s feedback, such as resident meetings and questionaries. We also observed a ‘You said We did’ poster. We saw how changes had been made in direct response to people’s feedback. For example, new activities had been introduced as a result of feedback, which demonstrated a true co-production ethos was practiced and shared in the home.

People’s feedback was analysed and considered. Opportunities to act on people’s feedback and potentially enhance their experience of the care they received were acted on. Relatives also told us they had opportunities to speak up. One relative told us, “I would go straight and speak to the manager.”

The registered manager adopted an open-door policy and were available to people, relatives and staff at any time. Staff told us they felt able to speak up and raise any concerns relating to the service, people’s care or their own employment.

Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies were in place to guide staff on how to raise and report concerns.

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.

Processes were in place which helped to protect the rights of staff under the Equality Act 2010. Risk assessments and any reasonable adjustments measures were used if appropriate. This helped to create a more equitable and inclusive organisation.

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.

Governance processes were robust and reliable enough to help ensure the delivery of safe and appropriate care.

Processes were in place to enable a range of regular audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided at the home, where actions for improvement were identified, they were completed in a timely way.

Governance processes helped to create opportunities to help drive up improvements in care planning, care delivery and the best possible outcomes for people.

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.

Processes were in place to help ensure information was shared with external partners, for example, the Local Authority, as appropriate and helped to create opportunities to share information and best practice.

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.

Processes were in place to assess and review risks to people, so the provider had an accurate picture of risk across the service at any one time. This meant there were opportunities to learn from any shortfalls in practice and to make the necessary improvements, to help better achieve good outcomes and experiences for people.

Audits of the home were also completed by staff from sister homes to help enable increased sharing of knowledge and learning.

We discussed the minor issues we found during our inspection with the provider and registered manager and found they were receptive to our feedback. They had already identified some of our concerns and had begun to work on implementing actions to resolve the shortfalls. This demonstrated a positive commitment to achieving improvement in standards of care and support.