Heron Lea Residential 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

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 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 75 (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 new provider had inherited a staff team from the previous provider and had done a lot of work to improve all areas of the service. Staff were included as key partners in the improvements. There was a strong focus on providing staff with the skills and training they needed to be effective and confident in their roles. Staff were very positive about the changes and embraced them.

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 provider led by example and was open and honest with staff and outside professionals. One visiting professional explained, ‘[The provider] is calm in [their] manner but does not sugar coat things. [They are] forthcoming with info and will ask advice and guidance when needed [and] take on board any advice.’ The provider showed a strong commitment to sharing the knowledge and training they had received to help develop the skills and expertise of the staff. Staff were encouraged to take on additional responsibilities and the provider actively supported them to do this. People who used the service and families were also positive about the provider. One said,’[The provider] is very concerned about your health and your records…[They] are kind and spend a lot of time around the home.’

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us the provider was approachable, and they would not hesitate to raise concerns should they need to. Staff were aware they could raise concerns externally, to CQC for example, and knew how to do this. People who used the service also felt empowered to raise concerns and issues. One person said, ‘The staff and the manager listen to you.’ Another commented, ‘There was a small group of staff and residents who got together recently. You can speak up if you want to.’ The resident and relative representatives were in place to support this process if needed.

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 told us the culture was a fair and equal one and they worked together in a supportive and collaborative way. Some staff had been sponsored from overseas and told us the provider had been committed to their inclusion within the team.

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. Although we identified a few issues for the provider to address we judged these had no impact on the service and did not demonstrate any significant failing in the leadership. The new provider had introduced systems and processes across the whole service, which had not been in place before or had been of poor quality. There was a new electronic recording system in place which evidenced care more accurately and staff were increasingly confident in its use. Feedback about the management of the service was positive from everyone we spoke with. The provider used comprehensive audit processes to monitor performance, risks, and outcomes, helping to drive continuous improvement. All notifications of significant incidents were made to CQC as required.

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. Information sharing and communication with key partners was good. Professionals gave positive feedback about this and we observed good partnership working during our onsite assessment visit, during which several professionals visited the service to review people’s care.

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. The provider was focussed on continuing improvement for the service and had an ongoing plan for this. External learning was brought back to the service to benefit the people living there. There was a strong focus on reflection and learning to increase skills and confidence.