Inver House

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. Systems in place did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

This service scored 62 (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 provider had a clear aim of providing a caring, person-centred service which promoted people’s rights. Discussions with staff reflected this ethos.

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. There was a management structure with senior staff, deputy manager, registered manager, senior management team and providers representative (Nominated individual). Staff were positive about the management team and discussions with them showed they knew all people and staff individually. There was a duty of candour policy in place and examples seen showed this had been followed.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. All staff said they felt able to raise anything with the management team and felt they would be listened to. There was no evidence of closed cultures. Care staff were positive about working at Inver House and would recommend it as a good place to work. People and family members as well as external professionals felt able to raise anything with the registered manager.

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. There was an inclusive and fair culture with equality and equity for staff. All staff were positive about working at Inver House and felt they were treated with respect. The management team valued diversity and ensured best practice guidelines were followed.

The provider’s systems of accountability, audits and governance had not ensured that all areas of the service were safe. The provider’s senior management team oversaw the auditing and governance procedures of the home’s management team and regularly attended the service. There were a range of quality monitoring procedures. These included audits of various aspects of the service and surveys of people and family members views and family forums. However, audits and governance procedures had not identified the issues we found during the inspection and detailed in the various sections of this report. This included medicines management and urine test sticks which were 15 months out of date meaning these would not provide a reliable result if used. Care planning and governance systems had not noted for a person who had returned from hospital with a need to undertake breathing exercises this was not documented in their care plan or showing as being completed by care staff. There was no formal system to monitor bowel movements and we noted one person who had 7 days with no bowel movement with no action noted by staff.Where we found other areas for improvement the management team were generally aware of these such as in respect of the need to review and personalise care plans which had been commenced.

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. The management team expressed an open positive attitude to receiving support and understood how and where they could access support. They had developed links with many local community organisations including schools, activities and religious organisations and people were supported to engage in a range of local community events. Feedback from external professionals was generally positive.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Resident and family and family support group meetings were held and where actions had been taken in response to feedback from people and family members this was planned to be shared via a ‘you said’ we did’ board once refurbishment was completed. The management team were open to feedback provided during and following the site visits. The management team was committed to making the necessary improvements. A comprehensive action plan had been developed to document and monitor improvements. The provider had systems in place to help ensure any lessons learnt from their other locations [care homes] were implemented across all their services.