Harmonia Village

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 legal regulation in relation to governance and record keeping at the service.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on supporting people with dementia by promoting their freedom of movement throughout the service, both inside and out, though the use of technology. Staff understood this vision. Staff told us they felt informed about changes and developments at the service through regular meetings and communication groups. Staff were positive about their role and the culture at the service. One staff said, “I always feel supported and valued because my manager listens and makes good comments on my work.”

The registered manager kept oversight of the culture of the service though regular meetings with staff and spot checks.

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 had a background in nursing and care. This enabled them to work alongside both clinical and care staff and provide oversight of staff practice. Staff felt well supported in their role. One staff said, “You get very good management support because they listen, and are accessible, you can go to them whenever you need.”

Staff were encouraged to provide feedback and share their views and opinions. There were regular meetings for staff. Staff were also invited to participate in surveys to share their views. Staff shared a number of examples of suggestions they made where action had been taken. One staff member said, “I wouldn’t wait for a team meeting to raise anything; I raised the problem of the overflowing bins outside; we were making too much rubbish and by the time the council came to collect, the bins were overflowing, especially the re-cycling. So, the manager got us larger bins.”

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. Staff told us they had received training in the Equality Act and felt fairly treated by the service. For example, one staff member told us, “I am happy to work here because I feel valued and supported by my colleagues and the management team”.

The service had a flexible working policy and supported staff’s needs. For example, one staff member told us, “I know some colleagues have requested night shifts so they can support their children during the day and the manager has been flexible in arranging this for them”.

Harmonia Village Care Home promoted staff well-being in regularly scheduled supervision sessions and held an annual award ceremony to reward the contributions staff made to the service. Feedback from staff surveys was positive.

There were governance systems in place. The provider used an electronic dashboard system which enabled the registered manager to monitor a number of areas of work within the service such as progress against maintenance tasks, care plan reviews and support for people such as hydration records. However, quality systems had not led to consistent care plans and risk assessments with sufficient levels of details. Concerns about cleanliness had been identified by the registered manager and some action had been taken, however this was not sufficient and had not led to enough improvement.

Peoples care records needed to be improved in some areas. For example, the registered manager had identified that one person’s continence care records were poorly documented following a complaint. However, they had not identified that this was a wider concern, and we identified another person whose continence care records were also poor which put them at risk as the registered manager would not be able to monitor support.

Staff worked in partnership with other services and community groups to improve outcomes for people. However, there were areas where improvement was needed to ensure partnership working was seamless and information was shared with partners. Feedback from partners was mixed and there were some areas where some partners felt there could be improvement. This included the level of information shared and some partners told us some referrals to services were not always needed.

The service was using innovation and learning to provide an alternative model of care locally which focuses on supporting people using technology to promote independence. However, there were areas where people would benefit from increased flexibility in the model of care to ensure delivery remains effective including during times where people’s needs fluctuate. For example, we identified where two people needed more direct staff support than was being provided prior to the inspection. This was addressed during the inspection.

There were plans in place to improve the service, for example, by adding new laundry space to improve its efficiency. Staff had suggested creating a new lounge area in the hub where people could sit and relax and a sofa had been ordered. The registered manager had plans to improve the outside environment which would benefit from routes of interest when people wanted to go for a walk independently. People and relatives were positive the registered manager would lead improvements. One relative said, “He will do his best to solve problems.”