Clifton Gardens Resource Centre

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.

The last rating for this key question was 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.

During our last assessment we identified breaches of a legal regulation relating to good governance. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer breaching this regulation.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our last assessment, staff told us problems with the environment and staff deployment meant they found it hard to deliver good quality care. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Staff and managers told us the culture of the service had improved. Staff explained they felt better supported. They had developed better relationships with relatives and communication had improved. Comments from staff included, “It is a lovely home and [the managers] have done so much to improve it”, “[Registered manager] is approachable and if we speak with [them] about a problem, it is sorted” and “We all love it here and are so happy.”

People living at the service and their relatives told us they thought it was a well-run service with a positive atmosphere. A relative commented, “It’s a wonderful place. [Person] is really happy and that makes us happy.”

The provider employed capable and inclusive leaders. The registered manager was experienced and had management in care qualifications. They worked closely with staff. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. A staff member explained, “I like working with [registered manager]. [They] always tell me there is no silly question and I can speak with [them] whenever I need.”

People using the service and relatives knew who the registered manager was and were happy to speak with them. Their comments included, “[Registered manager] is approachable, and I think [they] manage things well here”, “[Registered manager] is helpful” and “I can always ask [registered manager] if there is a problem.”

The provider had systems to enable staff to speak up. Staff told us they felt confident doing this and knew who to speak with about any concerns. A member of staff told us, “[Registered manager] tells us that we are not going to cover anything up and if we need to raise a safeguarding we will.”

The provider ensured workforce equality, diversion and inclusion. They had procedures to prevent discrimination. Staff told us their individual needs were met. Their comments included, “The service is flexible and supportive. I had to take time off and they gave me emergency leave”, “They support pregnant staff to make sure they are safe” and “Following [an injury], they were brilliant. They gave me light duties and equipment to make my job easier.”

The registered manager explained they employed a part-time senior member of staff whose role was specifically to support staff who struggled to access training. This person provided guidance and follow up support to ensure staff had benefitted from training and could understand the learning.

At our last assessment, we found systems and processes for monitoring and improving the quality of the service were not always effective. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The provider had systems to monitor and improve quality. These included a range of audits and checks, management meetings and staff supervisions. When the provider identified problems, these were addressed, and improvements were made. Since our last assessment, the provider had made improvements throughout the service. People, relatives and staff explained how these had improved their experiences and the quality of care.

The provider had plans to improve the service further by transferring records to an electronic system. At the time of our assessment, they were training staff how to use this system in preparation for the change.

Staff worked in partnership with others to make sure people received good quality care and support which met their needs. They had regular meetings with external health and social care professionals. Staff made timely referrals when they identified someone needed additional support.

The service had close links with local churches, schools and nurseries. They had undertaken a project with a local nursery to alleviate loneliness and bring different generations together to share hobbies and activities. This had been successful. The service had weekly visits from 2 therapy dogs. Student volunteers supported the activities coordinator to provide social and leisure activities.

At our last assessment, we found there were inconsistent processes to ensure learning happened when things went wrong. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Staff undertook a wide range of training to help them to understand how to meet people’s needs and provide good quality care. A local healthcare team offered training, support and guidance to staff about how to support people. The registered manager told us they could tailor this specifically for the needs of the service. This was because the healthcare team also supported people and knew their individual needs well.

The provider had clear policies and procedures which reflected good practice guidance and legislation. They summarised a sample of these each month to share with staff to refresh and test their knowledge.

Staff took part in regular meetings and discussed when things went wrong. Staff told us they were supported to share their ideas and learn from each other. The registered manager told us they used complaints as a learning opportunity and had developed procedures because of these.