The Vineries

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 the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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 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. 

Whilst the registered manager was very committed and supported by a committed team, staff vacancies and pressures within the service had resulted in staff working beyond their means. This had resulted in gaps in record keeping, records which were not in chronological order making in harder to audit them, a lack of activities and social engagement and inclusion with the local community. People were not going out; some people were socially isolated. Activities were not happening regularly and audits capturing all this data did not result in a clear action plan.

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.

The registered manager and her deputy were committed, experienced and communicated across the staff team. They were visible in the service. Support was needed in terms of administrative tasks. We were concerned that the service did not have the resources needed to maintain high standards and full compliance with regulation and this had not been identified.

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

Staff were confidence and comfortable in speaking up and were consulted about their job role and training requirements.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to support staff and value their individuality. Staff were supported through times of illness to ensure their rights were upheld.

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, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

During our assessment we identified risks and concerns relating to the quality of the care provided which had not been identified by the provider. Risks were identified in terms of the environment, record keeping and overview of staffing and their induction records. This told us that the provider oversight and planning for an effective service was not sufficiently robust.

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 responded to our feedback and was keen to learn and improve the service. They worked in cooperation with other providers to ensure they were compliant with legislation.

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 and research.

Whilst staff were experienced there were not clear pathways of support to ensure staff were encouraged to develop professionally, the service was not creative in thinking how they could improve people’s life experiences and continue to stay mentally and physically well.