Pine View 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 71 (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.

At our last inspection, although staff were always caring, the challenges and the needs of people and their communities were not always understood or met. Staff needed support in understanding some peoples’ distress so they could provide appropriate person-centred care.

At this inspection the service had improved. Staff had been trained in dementia care, managing distressed behaviour, positive behaviour support, and understanding anxiety. People’s care plans and risk assessments had been re-written and improved, so staff had clear guidance on how to support people if they became distressed. Staff were observed using person-centred communication, sensory calming techniques, and gentle distraction to reassure and comfort people.

This approach was in keeping with the service’s positive, compassionate, listening culture which promoted trust and understanding between staff and the people using the service.

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. They had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

At our last inspection the provider was supportive to people and staff, but improvements were required to ensure all aspects of the service were being effectively monitored and any shortfalls identified and addressed.

At this inspection the provider was knowledgeable about issues and priorities for the service. They had accessed appropriate support and development in their role, working closely with the local authority to bring about improvements to the service. These included a comprehensive audit system designed to ensure the provider had a good overview of how the service was operating.

The provider fostered a positive culture where staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had policies and procedures in place to support staff if they wanted to raise concerns, speak up, and ‘whistleblow’ if they needed to. The provider had an ‘open door’ policy and was at the service fulltime for staff to speak with them. Staff also knew how to go outside the service, for example to the local authority or CQC, if they had concerns they did not wish to raise internally.

Staff told us they would have no hesitation in speaking out if they had any concerns about the service. A staff member said, “We can go to [the provider] at any time. They always listen and take what we say seriously.”
 

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.

Staff reported high levels of satisfaction with their roles and described feeling well-supported by both the provider and the deputy manager. Regular supervision sessions and team meetings were in place, providing opportunities for staff to review their progress, discuss training and development, and raise any concerns. A staff member commented, “We are like family here. We all look out for each other, residents and staff alike. We value each other”

The service’s well-established, multicultural team maintained a working environment that upheld dignity and respect for everyone. The provider was committed to equal opportunities and had clear policies and procedures to promote fairness, consistency, and transparency across the service.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At or last inspection the provider did not have effective environmental or infection prevention and control checks in place to identify shortfalls and drive improvements.

Since then, the provider has implemented and embedded new systems to effectively monitor current performance and manage future risks to the quality of the service. These systems include a comprehensive programme of audits carried out by the provider and deputy manager, ensuring that all aspects of the service were operating safely, effectively, and in line with expected standards.

The audits we checked were detailed and comprehensive. Regular environmental and infection prevention control checks were carried out and any shortfalls added to the service’s internal action/improvement plan.

People’s views and satisfaction levels were represented when audits and checks were carried out. For example, the provider’s annual review of the service included a ‘quality of life’ section where evidence from residents’ meetings, surveys, activities, and observations were considered to ensure the service was meeting people’s needs.

Notifications were consistently submitted to CQC and other external organisations as required. The service had a business continuity in case of an emergency or natural disasters.

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. However, people did not have any meaningful engagement with their local community.

At our last inspection the service had little contact with their local community to identify new and innovative ideas that could lead to better outcomes for people who used the service, for example participation in local events/charities/leisure activities.

At this inspection the situation remained the same. People seldom left the premises except when relatives took them out or when they had medical appointments. A relative said they would like the service to arrange an outing for people. We discussed this with the provider who agreed to liaise with people and relatives with a view to arranging an outing if this was what people wanted.

Since we last inspected the provider had worked closely with the local authority to bring about continuous improvements to the service. As a result, they were now compliant with their local authority’s quality assessment framework.

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.

At our last inspection improvement was needed to ensure the provider has an embedded robust governance system which identifies shortfalls of safe care delivery and treatment.

At this inspection the provider had delivered continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the service.

Staff had developed their knowledge and skills via an enhanced training programme. Care plans and risk assessments had been updated and re-written to ensure people received person-centred care. Parts of the premises had been refurbished and the garden made safer and more accessible with further improvements plans.

Quality assurance surveys were sent out to people, relatives, staff, and professionals with a view to involving them in developing and evaluating improvement at the service.