Snydale 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 service under this provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

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

This service scored 46 (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 demonstrate a clear or consistently embedded vision, strategy or culture founded on transparency, equality, diversity, inclusion and respect for human rights. There was limited evidence that the provider fully understood or responded to the challenges and needs of people using the service and the wider community.

At the time of the inspection, a new manager had been in post for a few months and was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. Although the manager had begun to implement changes and some improvements were evident, these were not yet sufficiently embedded to ensure people consistently received high-quality care and support. There was no stable and visible leadership and an open and inclusive culture was not promoted.

Staff feedback indicated a period of ongoing change within the service. Although some staff acknowledged that improvements had been made, concerns remained regarding staffing pressures and workload. Several staff reported that they were unable to take regular breaks due to staffing shortages and felt that their concerns were not always listened to or acted upon. This indicated that staff engagement and communication processes were not always effective.

Not all leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of the context in which care, treatment and support were delivered. Leadership was not consistently aligned with the organisation’s values, and leaders did not always model a culture of integrity, openness and transparency. In addition, there were gaps in the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility required to provide effective and consistent leadership.

The service had been without a registered manager for over 2 years, resulting in limited leadership oversight. Although managers had been appointed during this period, none had successfully completed registration, and the service lacked stable, consistent management and leadership. This had a negative impact on the overall direction of the service and the support provided to staff.

Feedback from staff and people using the service was mixed. Some individuals reported that the current manager was making positive progress and found this reassuring. However, others continued to describe a lack of support, alongside a negative culture and low staff morale.

The provider had not identified all the concerns found during the inspection, demonstrating a lack of oversight and quality assurance processes. However, the manager showed dedication and commitment to improvement and was responsive in addressing the issues raised. There was evidence of a proactive approach to developing the skills, knowledge and effectiveness of the leadership team, although this work was not yet fully established or embedded.

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

We received mixed feedback from staff around freedom to speak up. Some staff told us they didn’t feel their views or concerns were listened to; however, other staff told us they were able to speak with the manager team about any issues, concerns or ideas and would be supported.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place, but not all staff knew where to find this, or how to escalate concerns. We saw evidence of staff meetings being carried out in recent months, and an increase in frequency of staff appraisals and supervisions which allowed for 2-way conversations between staff and leaders.

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.

We received mixed feedback from staff about how well supported they felt by the management team. Not all staff were being supported with supervisions and meetings to discuss their job roles and any further training or support they may need.

There was a diverse workforce at the service, with staff employed from a wide range of backgrounds, cultures, and experiences.

Staff received relevant training to inform their knowledge and understanding of equality, inclusivity and fairness in the workplace.

The provider did not have clearly defined responsibilities, roles, or systems of accountability and governance. Effective processes were not in place to ensure that risks, performance, and outcomes were consistently identified, monitored, and acted upon, nor was information appropriately shared when required.

The provider did not fully understand the legal responsibilities associated with their role. This was further compounded by a culture in which accountability was not effectively managed, and we witnessed blame towards staff rather than promoting learning and development.

Effective systems and processes were not in place to provide robust management oversight or to drive continuous improvement within the service. Widespread and significant shortfalls were identified during the inspection that had not been recognised or addressed through existing quality assurance systems. These included concerns relating to medicines management, record keeping, risk assessments, pre-admission processes, and the accuracy and completeness of care plans.

In addition, statutory notifications, which are required to be submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), had not always been made. This further demonstrated a lack of effective governance, oversight, and understanding of regulatory responsibilities.

Governance arrangements were not sufficiently robust to ensure the safe and effective delivery of care.

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.

There was evidence of people engaging with communities and partners which could lead to better outcomes for them and their families told us relevant information was shared with them and external professionals when required.  The manager and staff accessed support from health and social care professionals when needed.

Some relatives told us they felt involved and consulted in their loved one’s care.

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.

Although accidents and incidents were reviewed by the manager and we saw evidence of some outcomes, feedback was not actively shared with staff for learning and mitigation of future risks. There was limited evidence of lessons learnt or discussions when things had gone wrong.