Parkside

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 legal regulations in relation to good governance and failing to notify CQC of other incidents.

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 always have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. For example, we identified the service improvement plan did not always state who had oversight of the actions. For some of the actions, there were no timescales recorded to ensure consistent monitoring of the actions. This did not demonstrate the provider was continuously evaluating the service. The provider did not have a service improvement plan which ensured and evidenced a structured planning process was carried out which involved working in collaboration with people who use the service.

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. Our inspection found the oversight and governance of the service did not meet the expected standards resulting in breaches of regulation. We have reported on this throughout the report. However, we received positive feedback about the registered manager from relatives. We were told they can talk to the office any time and they told us of a time whereby a person was locked out in the cold and the registered manager “saved [person] life.” Staff felt they were supported by the registered manager as they told us, “Suggestions made by staff are acted on with dates to complete,” and “Topics raised are always acted on.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt supported and the service had a freedom to speak up policy.

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 provider had an equality, diversity and inclusion policy. Leaders told us they had policies and procedures on the system for staff. They told us they were “open about religion and beliefs so no one feels unrepresented,” and they embraced staff working from different cultural backgrounds and ethnicities. Staff told us staff meetings took place and they, “Can suggest changes or improvements which are listened to and actioned.”

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 provider did not evidence they had established systems and processes to quickly identify, monitor and manage people using the service with high level of risk. This did not demonstrate effective oversight of people’s needs and requirements. We identified audits had not been completed to identify and support good governance and oversight of the service. For example, throughout the inspection concerns CQC identified in the recruitment records, medicines, spot checks and competencies had not been identified by the service. We were not assured the provider understood or followed their regulatory responsibilities in relation to good governance and oversight of the service to keep people safe. For example, statutory notifications had not been submitted to CQC in line with their regulatory responsibilities. The provider had not established effective systems to enable them to ensure compliance with their legal obligations and the regulations.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The provider’s lack of oversight and monitoring of the service impacted the effectiveness of collaborative working and sharing of information. The local authority informed CQC of their concerns whereby the provider did not always communicate in a timely manner which continued to have an impact on the local authority’s ability to obtain information and to follow their processes.

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. Our inspection identified due to the lack of governance, oversight and shortfalls in elements of care, the provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.