Steep House Nursing 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 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.

There was a positive and welcoming culture. People and relatives described the home positively. A relative said staff provided, “Thoroughly good, honest, kind care.”

The provider’s statement of purpose set out their aims and objectives for the provision of people’s care and the values upon which people’s care delivery was based. Staff told us the new provider had a meeting and shared their visions and values with them.

The provider had policies in place to create a working environment based on equality and inclusiveness. Staff spoken with provided positive feedback about their experience of working at 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, their deputy manager and the regional manager were all visible within the home and had good oversight of people’s care. Management completed daily walkarounds to check standards, listen to concerns, and identify issues early, as well as meeting with the head of department’s daily. The deputy manager provided day-to-day guidance, clinical oversight, and hands-on support to staff in their work.

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

Staff were provided with the opportunity to raise any concerns they had about the service or their own well-being either directly with the management team, through meetings, supervisions and the annual staff survey. There was evidence when any concerns were raised, they were thoroughly investigated.

Staff could also raise issues outside the home if required. The provider’s whistleblowing policy was clearly displayed for staff if required. Staff spoken with told us they felt listened to.

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 provider had a range of policies and processes to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of staff. Equality impact assessments were completed on policies to ensure they were fair and did not discriminate against any group with a protected characteristic. Staff completed equality and diversity training, which supported staff to understand protected characteristics and inclusive practice with both people and colleagues.

The registered manager recognised the diversity of the workforce and celebrated staff’s different cultures by holding international days and events.

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.

The provider had a range of governance processes to ensure oversight of the service and to monitor the quality of the service provided. There was a weekly clinical risk review meeting, to monitor and oversee clinical risks to people within the home. Records showed the identified actions from previous meetings, discussions and audits were also reviewed which ensured effective monitoring of identified clinical actions for people.

The provider was in the process of introducing their own audit system to the home and in the interim staff continued to complete their existing audits, in order to identify areas for improvement and learning.

The provider’s quality development manager also visited the home monthly to assess a range of aspects of the home including governance, monitoring, quality, clinical care and records. There was a service improvement plan for the home, where all actions from audits and monitoring visits were noted and progress overseen until completion.

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.

Staff worked in close co-operation with partners from a range of agencies, to share information, identify and meet people's care needs. Staff made referrals promptly where required and acted upon guidance.

Staff also involved people in the local community, some people were involved with the local dementia choir. Whilst staff had involved people with the ’Great Yorkshire Pudding Challenge’ which was part of a themed dining activity aimed at promoting social interaction, participation, and positive mealtime experiences for people across the providers homes.

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.

Staff told us they were encouraged to speak up about any ideas for improvement. A staff member said, “They ask for our opinions if something has changed to say how it is working and how it could work better.”

The head chef had been nominated by the provider for a national industry award, for their person centred care, leadership and focus on people’s well-being, evidence of which we saw.