Maids Moreton Hall

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 dual 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 68 (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.

Staff told us they were proud to work at Maids Moreton and demonstrated compassion when talking about people using the service. Staff shared positive experiences of induction into the service and told us they enjoyed in-person training. A staff member told us, “Overall, it is a good place to work.” People told us they would recommend Maids Moreton to others.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty, however, they did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the management within the service. However, some expressed concerns about recent and planned changes to the management team, the level of communication from the wider organisation and the impact of management turnover. Comments included, “We have concerns about the lack of response from the company. When you raise an issue, they don’t respond or brush you off,” “I think it is a pity the manager left. I think it has affected morale in the staff” and “We’ve seen 3 or 4 managers in a year, that’s not good.”

People, relatives and staff told us several members of the service’s management team had recently resigned, including the registered manager and clinical lead. They felt changes in leadership and limited support from the wider organisation had affected staff morale and contributed to concerns about continuity and staff retention.

Staff were positive about the management team working within the service but described a lack of visibility, communication and support from senior managers within the wider organisation. One staff member told us, “I think the in-house management team are excellent. I think the support from above them isn’t, and I think this contributes to staff retention issues. The in-house management work with what they are given, but what they are given isn’t enough.”

Another staff member said they did not know who senior managers were and told us senior leaders did not routinely introduce themselves or engage with staff or people living at the service when they visited. They felt this was inconsistent with the organisation’s stated approach to person-centred care.

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

Staff were able to speak up during team meetings, supervisions, and via the organisations whistleblowing policy. Staff told us they felt listened to by the management team within the home. Comments included, “I do feel listened to overalland there are opportunities to comment and discuss. The registered manager makes sure the staffmeetings have an online option too,” “The management have always supported me, we have daily huddle meetings where we can bring any concerns daily as well as monthly team meetings. In addition to this we can always knock on the door if we want advice on something urgent. Management also often walk around the home to do spot checks and offer support.”

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. All staff completed equality and diversity training. We did not identify any concerns around unfair treatment. All staff confirmed they were treated fairly.

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.

People’s care records did not always contain accurate and consistent information. For example, 1 person’s required dietary modification level was recorded as 3 different levels across their care records. Records for another person contained inconsistent guidance about the equipment staff should use to support them with moving and handling. One piece of equipment recorded was not suitable for the person’s current needs. Audits had not identified these inconsistencies. This meant staff did not always have clear and consistent information to support people safely.

Care records did not always demonstrate that planned care and support had been provided, including personal care, modified food and fluids, food and fluid intake, and activities. One person’s records showed a relative had contacted the service to raise concerns about how the person’s personal care had been provided. There was no recorded evidence of any follow-up, action taken or outcome following this contact. The provider could therefore not always be assured people had received care and support in accordance with their assessed needs and care plans, or that concerns raised had been appropriately followed up.

However, the management team completed regular audits in areas including medicines, dining experiences and falls. Records showed actions identified through these audits were followed up and completed. Senior carers showed us evidence of checking tasks that had been completed by carers, for example, temperature and equipment checks. The registered manager was responsive to feedback during the inspection and took action to address concerns brought to their attention.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. Professionals provided positive feedback about working with the service. Comments included, “Based on my professional interactions with the home over the past 8 years, I do not have concerns that I feel I need to raise regarding the staff, leadership or the service.”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The provider had systems in place to support learning and continuous improvement, as well as gaining feedback from people, relatives and staff to identify areas where improvements could be made. Learning was shared with staff through team meetings and handovers.