Select Lifestyles Regent 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 newly registered 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.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always create a positive culture as they were not consistently delivering care in line with the supported living model.

Along with the other concerns we have identified through this report, when we spoke with staff they often referred to the people they supported as ‘residents’, which demonstrated they also did not fully understand the supported living model.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support.

A lack of understanding of the importance of delivering an effective model of supported living meant people did not always receive individual care in line with this model of care. Some leaders did not have the skills required to consistently deploy staff in an effective way to ensure people’s safety. Not doing this well had led to incidents of harm.

However, people and relatives were happy with how the company was managed. One relative told us, “Simply because they are caring to him and look after his needs”.

Care staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and when they needed to escalate concerns.

The team was aware of and understood their legal responsibilities around notifying CQC about any important events that had happened in the service.

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

Relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident to do so. An easy read version was available for people they supported.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff were aware of this and the procedures they needed to follow. One staff member told us, “I have no problem going to speak with my manager if I had an issue.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for the people who worked for them.

Staff told us they were happy working within the company and felt they were treated fairly. There were procedures in place to consider staffs’ individual needs and ensuring all staff were treated equitably.

There were not always effective systems in place to make changes and identify areas of improvement.

There were some audits in place however they were not always effective in identifying areas of improvement. There was a system in place to monitor medicines, however it had not identified the concerns we found with the storage of medicines and therefore this meant it was not effective in identifying all areas of improvement.

The registered manager told us they completed spot checks in people’s homes, although we saw these were being completed, they had not identified that a model of supported living was not always being delivered.

There was no effective oversight or system in place that ensured people were receiving the correct levels of staff support.

Some audits that were completed had identified some areas requiring improvement, such as audits of care plans. However, improvements were still needed to ensure these audits were effective in identifying all the issues we identified with care plans, such as a lack of information about how 1 to 1 support should be delivered and what checks were required when 1 to 1 support ended.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

There were systems in place to ensure the provider worked in partnership with other agencies. The provider adopted a multi agency approach to the care people received and involved professionals with this where needed. As part of this assessment, we asked the Local Authority for feedback, and we received no concerns.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation.

The systems in place were not effective and had not identified all concerns as reported upon, and drive improvements, which meant learning opportunities were missed.