The Old School House Care 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

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 re registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance and oversight of the service.

This service scored 61 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had regular team meetings, and handovers between each shift, to support the service team in working together. However, there was no vision or strategy for the service about the type of service the provider wanted to deliver. For example, the service did not yet have an approach to dementia care.

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.

Service leaders showed compassion and caring approaches to people. However, they did not yet have the management level training to take forward leadership of a service that was mostly used by people who have dementia.

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

Staff fed back they felt comfortable with the manager and provider’s chief operating officer and they would feel able to raise concerns to them about the quality or safety of the service.

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. The service manager and provider had delivered a supportive and inclusive working environment for staff.

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.

The provider had an active involvement and oversight of the service primarily through the activity of their chief operating officer (COO). The COO met with the service manager at least weekly and spent several hours each week concerned with the operation and quality of the service. However, the audit and oversight system had not led to the issues in the service being addressed effectively. For example, the cleanliness and tidiness of the inside and outside of the home.

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.

People were frequently discharged from the local hospital to the service. The relationship between health services taking part in this discharge process was working well. The admission processes into the home were taking place effectively.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice based on research.

The provider had an active 3 monthly system of surveying for people, relatives and staff to give feedback on the service. However, receiving this feedback had not led to the necessary improvement in the service as shown by the outcomes of this assessment.