The DurhamGate 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 inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service management and leadership were consistent. Leaders and the culture they created supported the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 68 (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. New staff received support and training which helped them to demonstrate the provider’s values in their daily work with people. Staff members’ comments included, “I thoroughly enjoy working here” and “It is the best place I have worked.”

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. People, staff and professionals were complimentary about the registered manager. Their comments included, “The manager will help out”, “The manager is approachable” and “There is an open door you can call in.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.The provider had a clear whistle blowing policy. Staff could raise concerns, and written information was available of how to do this. Staff meetings took place, and staff had the opportunity to share comments and give feedback. People were informed of the complaints procedure when they started to use the service and at meetings.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff told us they were able to ask for reasonable adjustments to be made to their working patterns for specific needs, for example to incorporate family commitments.

Governance was not always effective. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and better governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Regular audits and checks were carried out such as, care records, health and safety and staff practice. Audits showed action was taken where areas of improvement were identified. However, some audits such as in medicine records, peoples’ dining experience, staff deployment and other areas identified during our inspection needed to be more robust and more frequent, to ensure the quality of service provision. The registered manager made improvement to audits during our inspection.

Staff at the service 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. A professional commented, “The care staff do follow advice and guidance from the district nursing team.” The management team were positive about their links with local partners and health and social care teams.

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. There was evidence of changes that had been made to the service to make improvements and to address checks and audits outcomes and in response to people and staff feedback. However, we identified further improvements were needed in areas, as described in sections above in this report. External quality assurance arrangements were in place to monitor the internal governance systems.