Heathlands 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 they cared for and their communities.

A member of the nursing team commented on the shared vision that helped improve the home from where it was previously. They said, “Myself, [registered manager] and [deputy manager] worked really hard to improve. Lots needed to be done, staff are now calmer and working well. Medicines has improved and the residents are feeling the benefits of that.”

Another member of staff said, “They [registered manager] and [deputy manager] changed the culture of the home, they started resident of the day where we look at a resident in more depth.”

The registered manager and deputy manager were invested in the home, had high standards they wanted adhered to, and it was evident they wanted the best for people living there.

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.

People, their relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and deputy manager. Nursing staff and other staff were also respected and seen as valuable to the home.

Staff told us the registered manager and deputy manager were kind and supportive. A member of staff said, “Theres an open-door policy, I came here because of the registered manager, she listens.”

Other comments about the supportiveness of leaders included, “Of course, it’s teamwork, operation managers and quality manager visit often.” Another member of staff said, “The nurses always tell us we do a good job."

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

Staff were overall positive about being able to share their views and speak up. Where staff felt they were not able to speak up we informed the registered manager and deputy manager.

Staff reported feeling well supported in their roles and highlighted a positive culture of openness within the service. They told us, “Management’s door is always open, and they actually listen when you have a problem. It makes a huge difference.” This reflected an environment in which individuals felt safe to raise concerns and confident that they will be heard. The provider fosters a culture of continuous improvement by actively encouraging feedback and responding constructively to issues raised.

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 home demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion across its workforce and staff came from a range of backgrounds. Recruitment practices were inclusive and aimed to reflect the diversity of the community. The registered manager and deputy manager led by example, creating a workplace culture where differences were seen as strengths.

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.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place to monitor the quality of the home and this was overseen by the operations manager. Audits of care plans, staff files, medicines, training, accidents and incidents, falls and infection control. Daily walk-arounds by senior staff helped ensure these standards were upheld consistently and any issues were quickly identified and addressed. These practices contributed to a well-led environment focused on safety, accountability, and continuous improvement.

The registered manager and deputy manager had the support from the provider and other senior managers when it came to quality monitoring.

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.

The registered manager maintained regular contact with health professionals and external groups to enhance the experience for people living at the home. The home ran a number of events for people to enjoy and participate in. The local pastor visited people at the home who wished to receive holy communion, this helped to promote social inclusion and reducing isolation.

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.

During our inspection, we found that home actively fostered a culture of learning, improvement and openness. Poor practice was addressed promptly to ensure staff learnt and could correct it quickly for their self-improvement which provided better outcomes for people. Feedback from staff was also encouraged. Staff told us they were asked to provide their views for improvement during team meetings and reflective practice and during handovers for the registered manager and deputy manager to act on. The registered manager said, “Every meeting, handover and clinical meeting we discuss ways to improve."