Leighton Forest

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 the legal regulation in relation to governance. The provider had not always ensured their systems were effective or ensured oversight of quality, safety and management of risks.
 

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.

Improvements were needed to ensure a proactive culture in relation to safeguarding was always present, including staff and leaders ensuring that safeguarding concerns were always appropriately identified, escalated and acted upon.

However, we found there was a listening culture within the service, where as soon as concerns were known to leaders, these were acted upon. The provider told us they had worked hard to improve the staff team's culture. A staff member told us, “The culture has improved very much since opening, we took on previous staff from Swiss Cottage (the previous name of the service under the previous provider). The previous culture needed to change. Some people resigned, others adapted to the new company and have come on board.” A relative told us, “I praise them how efficient and understanding of my [Relative] they are and of us as a family. A person told us, “I think the home is better than it was before.”

At this inspection, we identified areas of concern and breaches of the legal regulations relating to safeguarding, safe care, and governance. This meant we could not be assured that leaders were aware of all safety and quality risks.

However, leaders of all levels were visible in the service and accessible to staff, people, their relatives and external professionals. A relative said, “It is such a lovely home, all the staff are kind and friendly, they go above and beyond what is needed. The [Registered Manager] mucks in. I have seen [them] support people and push wheelchairs about.” The nominated individuals based themselves at the service as much as possible since taking over from the previous provider to support continuous improvement.

People, their relatives and staff felt they could approach leaders with any concerns they had. A relative said, “[Registered Manager] is lovely. We always see them about. We can talk to them, and they will come into the room. I can’t fault them.” Another relative, when reflecting on how the registered manager responded to hearing about their concerns, said, “When [Registered Manager] came to hear what we have to say, they admitted that is not right and apologised. [Registered Manager] sounded really sorry our relative had (a negative experience). [Registered Manager] said to leave it all with them and that they will make sure this never happens again.” A staff member said, “I feel well supported by the managers; I feel it’s very open; if there were any concerns, I wouldn’t hesitate or be shy to knock on the door and tell them my concerns.”

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. All staff we spoke with felt they were treated with equality.

At this assessment, we found the provider had not always ensured they established or operated effective systems in relation to reviewing incidents, safeguarding, care planning, medicines and infection prevention and control. This had resulted in breaches of the legal regulations and increased safety and quality risks. The provider had not independently identified all concerns prior to our inspection. However, the provider was responsive to our feedback and made and planned improvements immediately. We will check for sustained improvement at our next inspection.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. There was evidence the provider had worked alongside external professionals, people and their relatives in relation to people’s care needs. The provider regularly shared good news stories with relatives via social media. We found evidence the provider acted on feedback from people, relatives and stakeholders.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. For example, we found evidence that learning from inspections across their organisation had been planned and was in progress at Leighton Forest. The service had a service improvement plan in place, which was regularly reviewed. Concerns identified at this inspection were taken on board positively, and the provider responded immediately and took actions or planned longer-term actions they would take. A person told us, “I remember the home before the new leadership; I can confirm that there are some improvements, like people who work here now are much nicer and more helpful, and rooms are better looking, clean and freshly painted.