Allingham House Care 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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.
The staff could confidently tell us what the home wanteds to achieve. One staff member told us, “The service aims to give safe, person-centred, and compassionate care. This guides how I support people every day and treat them with respect and dignity.”
Our observations in the home confirmed this approach, with people being transferred and spoken to with care and gentleness.
Dementia champions, who had received specific training ensured people who exhibited challenging behaviour were supported effectively and sensitively in line with the values of the home.
 

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.

The registered manager was supported by the regional director and benefited from the organisation’s dedicated learning and development team, which identified and promoted wider training opportunities for all staff. The manager demonstrated a clear commitment to valuing the workforce and was proactive in supporting staff development. Partner agencies, including the local authority, spoke positively about the home’s progress and the direction in which it was moving.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
The home had a whistleblowing policy and the relevant phone numbers were displayed in all staff rooms. Staff said they felt comfortable to raise any concerns. One member of staff said, “There is an open and inclusive culture where everyone is encouraged to share ideas and concerns.”
The registered manager said she had an open-door policy and all staff had her contact details which they could use to raise any concerns. The well-being champions provided an alternative line of communication if staff did not feel comfortable speaking directly to management. Staff said they were confident that any concerns raised would be looked into appropriately.

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.
There was a diverse staffing team at Allingham House Care Centre who were all treated equally. The registered manager was proactive in ensuring new staff were welcomed and supported. Consideration was given when looking at allocations and rotas to ensure there was variety within the staff team, preventing closed cultures.
Staff completed equality and diversity training and said they were treated fairly, one staff member told us, “I don't have any concerns about how the service treats me. I feel I am treated fairly and with respect. I am getting adequate support from the management and they always motivate me”.
 

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Audits were completed carried out and some and where shortfalls were identified action plans were implemented to address the issues.

The provider did not have sufficient oversight of the process involved where people lacked capacity to make a specific decision. A referral was completed for authorisation to deprive the person of their liberty. Once a deprivation was authorised, this was shared with the provider. Occasionally, a condition was applied to the deprivation, for example, one person’s condition was for the provider to facilitate contact with a relative. We found conditions attached to deprivation of liberty authorisations did not always filter through into care plans and we could not see any evidence, the condition of facilitating relative contact had occurred. .

There was a defined management structure in place which included clinical leads. Staff worked collaboratively with support from lead staff and everyone understood their responsibilities within their roles.
 

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.
The provider work with safeguarding teams, contracts and commissioners, hospital and discharge teams to ensure people received person-centred care and support. Referrals were discussed in daily meetings and completed by the nurse. These were monitored and reviewed in the weekly meetings with clinical staff.
Families were positive about the support provided. One family member told us “if [relative] is unwell, they get in touch with the doctor, The chiropodist comes in, but I do [their] feet. The optician comes in and I am trying to take [them] there. The consultant psychiatrist comes in to assess them. They also have physios in.”
 

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.
Action plans and lessons learned were implemented following serious incidents. The registered manager told us about how they had managed a person’s behaviour effectively through closely monitoring their triggers and having discussions with their family. Audits were completed and analysed and discussions took place to mitigate future risk.
People using the service, their families and carers were invited to regular meetings to gain feedback and discuss any concerns. However, some people and their relatives said their concerns were not addressed.
Improvements were being made to the home following feedback about the décor and cleanliness in the rooms. Plans had also begun to extend the challenging behaviour unit following concerns about the small corridor area and the potential this may have to aggravate behaviours.