Archmoor 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant provider leadership was inconsistent and did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of regulation in relation to good governance. This was because systems to support quality, safety and continuous learning were not operating effectively.

This service scored 57 (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. Leaders did not always demonstrate an understanding of the challenges within the service or the needs of the people and communities they served.

We spoke at length with the provider and registered manager. Both were highly experienced in their field and had been working in health and social care for many years. We acknowledged a lot of work had taken place around shifting the culture within the home, mainly centred around positive changes in personnel, which meant the workforce was more harmonious and collaborative than previously. However, there was a distinct lack of vision for the service and what it should look like, considering changes across the sector over many years and including what the future might look like. To keep pace with regulatory requirements and wider expectations across the sector for residential care settings, the provider needed to do more in developing a clear vision and plan, communicating this to staff and people, and putting this into practice across the whole-home. This was reinforced by our discussions with staff who were unable to clearly explain the service’s vision and values.

Supervision and training arrangements were not always effective in supporting staff to understand the people they cared for or the wider community context of the service. As a result, staff were not always equipped with the knowledge or skills needed to deliver care in line with best practice or with people’s individual needs.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. The service benefited from an experienced registered manager who consistently demonstrated the values of integrity, openness and honesty. Staff were consistently positive in their feedback, comments included “We’ve been through some changes with staffing but thanks to the manager we’re in a better place” and “The manager is lovely and very approachable.”

People felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt able to openly speak up about anything that concerned them. Staff members had access information which informed their practice including the procedures for whistleblowing. Staff felt able to talk with the management team and share concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture. All staff members we spoke with stated they felt they were treated equitably and supported fairly. Staff were aware of policies and procedures including which informed their experience work.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

Insufficient progress had been made to support governance. We saw several template documents in use, with no standard process properly embedded into everyday practice. Where audits and quality assurance had been completed, records did not adequately set out issues and actions. For example, audits needed to demonstrate the issue that had been identified, remedial taken, by when (date), and by whom. This should not be a tick box exercise. Overarching analysis to identify themes and trends were not sufficiently robust to identify emerging risks.

The provider had not physically been into the service for many years. We saw no evidence of provider level audits or quality assurance activity. We were not assured the provider had sufficient oversight.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The provider was inward looking and had not sought opportunities to collaborate with other services in the local area. There were missed opportunities to explore what help and support could be accessed in the local area that may enhance the experience of people living in the home. For example, third sector organisations who provide a range of resources across adult social care.

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.

The service had previously been supported by the adult social care quality team from the local authority. Whilst progress in making improvements had been slow, the registered manager had sought to positively engage in the process. Equally, we spoke at length with the registered manager about the benefits of being part of the local authority registered managers’ forum for the Middleton area. The registered manager agreed with us in that being part of this forum, it would support wider learning, sharing of information, and afford opportunities to collaborate with other registered managers and care homes. The registered manager assured us they would take steps to become more actively involved.

The care home provider has not been rated good since 2014. In 2019, the key question of well-led was rated Inadequate. At this assessment the service has again been rated requires improvement. This demonstrates a failure to learn and to implement sustained improvements.