Chestnut Court & Beechwood Court (Care Outlook)

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 good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

People said they knew who the registered manager was and spoke highly of the management team. Their comments included, “The manager is lovely. [They] always help if you have a problem or need advice”, “Management is very good. It seems to run very well. [Registered manager] is here every day”, “[Registered manager] will give you the time of day” and “I see [Registered manager] every day when I go to lunch. [They are] very nice. I’m a good judge of character. [Care co-ordinator] is amazing.”

Relatives added the management team was supportive and responsive to their family members’ needs. Their comments included, “The managers are very responsive. They do their best to sort things out but some things are out of their hands and with the Care Outlook company”, “[Registered manager] is marvellous. I couldn’t have got through the last month without [them].”

There was a good and positive culture at the service. The regional manager said when they took over from the previous provider, there were some issues among the staff team, such as gossiping and small issues being blown out of proportion. They added that when the registered manager took over, the concerns were addressed and things improved. The regional manager added, “It’s not the same service now. It’s so much better.”

The registered manager told us they wanted to work with the staff team to promote a positive culture. They organised some staff activities such as team building which included games and a way for staff to relax and have a nice time. They explained, “We want to provide a really good service where staff, relatives and us can come in and discuss. We want people to want to live here and for staff to want to work here. We see this place as a community and where people can interact.” They added, “There is a regional manager who is a menopause first aider. [They] can offer support to people and staff who might need this.”

The management team told us they ensured the staff were valued and promoted people’s individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to thrive.

Most staff told us there was a good and positive culture within the service where people and staff had a good rapport, and the atmosphere was one of respect and care. However, a minority of staff did not agree and felt unsupported. This is mentioned elsewhere in this report.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Not all staff felt they had opportunity to voice their opinion as they rarely had team meetings.One staff member told us, “Besides the supervisions and appraisals, we have not had any opportunity to express ourselves in a team meeting setting. I did request a staff meeting in January of this year and my request was completely ignored.” They added that the last meetings had not been productive, and they did not feel they could discuss anything.

We discussed this with the registered manager who confirmed they only held staff meetings twice a year. This meant there was a risk the staff team lacked opportunities to raise concerns and share information. The registered manager and regional manager told us they would discuss this further.

Although the provider said they cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care, not all staff we spoke with agreed and some stated they did not always feel listened to or valued. Their comments included, “I feel underappreciated and was very recently told I was just replaceable.Staff are always receiving emails with negative or 'having a go at' vibes from management. It’s never a well done.” We fed this back to the registered manager who assured us they would look into this and take appropriate action.

There were daily handover meetings to discuss important information, and any risks to service delivery. There were processes to support managers and senior staff in meeting their responsibilities.

The registered manager had experience of working in health and social care. They were keen to develop the service in order to benefit people and the staff team. They told us, “I think we all are compassionate. We are all on the same team, this is like a family, and we all get on so well. We all have an on-call handover so we know if anything has happened before coming in on a Monday.”

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

People were given information when they moved to the service about how to raise a concern and said they knew how to make a complaint.

Staff said they knew about the provider’s whistleblowing policy and would not hesitate to use this to benefit staff and people living at the schemes.

The provider had processes in place to support staff to speak up. This included supervision meetings, handover meetings, staff meetings and a whistleblowing policy. Staff had also received training in safeguarding to reinforce their understanding and their responsibility to speak up.

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.

Although all staff were able to communicate with people in English, some people and relatives said some of the staff were sometimes difficult to understand. A relative told us, “The only problem is some of the staff’s diction is not good and it’s hard to understand them.” We fed this back to the registered manager who told us they would look into this.

The provider had policies to promote equality, diversity and inclusion and to protect staff from discrimination and harassment.

Staff who had healthcare needs were supported appropriately. The registered manager told us they met with them regularly to establish how they were feeling and how they could meet their needs within the workplace.

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.

However, although most records were kept securely on the provider’s electronic system, a communication book containing information about people was kept in the main office which was also accessed by the housing department staff. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would address this to ensure all records are kept confidential going forward. Following the inspection, they sent us evidence of their action.

Staff at all levels understood their roles and their level of accountability. Office staff and care staff worked well together and understood how their duties impacted and supported the other.

Staff, people, relatives and external professionals had confidence in the leadership of the service.

There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service and these were mostly effective. Action was taken when audits identified the need for improvement.

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, we saw that when people’s needs changed and they required more support, it was sometimes a long process for this to be agreed by the local authority. This meant there was additional pressure for care staff to provide the necessary care within the time allowed. We saw evidence the provider took all necessary actions to obtain extra care time as needed.

The provider had systems and processes to ensure people’s needs were reviewed with external professionals. The provider listened to feedback from them and where a need was identified, amended their policies and procedures to promote effective communication and partnership working.

Staff told us they worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. The registered manager confirmed they had a good working relationship with a range of external professionals.

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.

Staff told us the managers were always aiming to make improvements to the service to benefit people, and they enjoyed being part of this and felt consulted and involved. Ongoing refresher training for staff contributed to safe and effective care for people.

The culture was an open one in which staff could ask questions and were supported to reflect on their experiences. The providers’ systems supported openness and learning. The electronic records system was well understood by staff on a day-to-day basis.

The registered manager told us they listened to people’s feedback and made improvements. The documents we viewed confirmed this.