Guiseley Manor Care 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 64 (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 were motivated by and proud of the service ensuring that there were high levels of satisfaction. Some staff told us that they did not always feel valued by all the management team. They felt that their needed to be more recognition from the registered manager regarding their achievements as a team and individually. One staff member told us, “I would recommend that improvement is needed in recognising colleagues’ different religion and culture.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce. People and their relatives gave us positive feedback about the leaders. One relative told us, I would feel comfortable talking to the manager if I had an issue, but I have no complaints at all.” Another person told us “[registered manager] is lovely. When we asked if she could move rooms, it was done the day after. They are all very nice here. The receptionists are helpful, and the handyman went out of his way to put those embroideries on the wall, right in her eyeline, it’s a piece of home for her.” We received mixed feedback from staff, with many staff stating that they felt supported to do their role. However not all felt supported in their work life balance and felt the registered manager needed to have a holistic approach to management within the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff generally felt that they could speak up, to some but not all members of the management team. When staff raised issues regarding the people who lived at Guiseley manor they felt this was addressed appropriately. People and their loved ones felt able to speak up and stated that they knew action would be taken promptly. When staff raised personal issues, they did not always feel this was acknowledged and dealt with appropriately.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff spoken to were highly motivated and liked working at Guiseley Manor. When asked, do you feel the management team are fair to all staff members a staff member told us “Not at all times, we all need encouragement as we strive to work hard.” Another said, “not all the management, favouritism is shown.” Minutes of team meetings evidenced staff were invited to give feedback about the service. The provider had an appropriate equality, inclusion and diversity policy.

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. Staff told us about their duties and responsibilities, they told us how they managed risk and reported concerns to management. Managers and staff understood their roles, and were clear about quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements. There were checks and audits in place to monitor quality and safety. Action was taken when audits identified areas for improvement.

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. Relatives told us about attending resident meetings, “I have attended two relatives’ meetings, and I do not have any concerns or issues. I do not have any problems speaking with anyone in the home” and “We received minutes of the relatives meeting.”

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. Staff at all levels had opportunities to make suggestions about service improvement through staff surveys and meetings. The registered manager kept up to date with local updates. The registered manager was committed to learning and improvement regarding the people that lived at Guiseley manor and the environment. They were receptive to feedback from people who use the service and relatives and took action to improve the quality of the service. This was not the same experience for all staff members with some expressing concerns around management style and staff morale.