Crows Nest

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 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 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 staff and leaders demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them and people using the service. There was no established vision or strategy.

There was an open and informal culture where people were supported individually to make decisions about their lives. This meant that people were supported to live a meaningful life, but records did not reflect how care was delivered in line with the providers vision, strategy and culture.

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.

Leaders were visible and involved in the day to day running of the service. People told us that leaders were approachable and supportive. Staff and people told us that there was a strong and reliable leadership team that they trusted to manage the service effectively.

The provider was open to working in partnership with other social care providers, they maintained good communication with day services and organisations where people spent time off the premises.

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

People told us that they felt confident to speak up if they needed to and that their concerns would be listened to and addressed. A relative told us about a situation where they were not satisfied with support, they were reassured by the leadership team and kept up to date with actions taken to improve service delivery. The person and their relative were satisfied with the outcome.

Staff told us who they could raise concerns with if they needed to and were aware that they could approach the local authority or CQC if necessary.

People were given the opportunity to speak up at regular ‘catch ups’ and staff had an opportunity to speak about concerns during team meetings and supervisions.

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.

Staff told us that they were treated fairly. They were supported with flexible working agreements when their personal circumstances changed, or their physical needs required a reasonable adjustment to working practices. Staff had received training in equality and diversity and there was a policy in place in line with current best practice.

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.

Staff told us the service was organised and well managed, they were clear about who they needed to approach for different issues, roles were clearly defined. They told us that information was gathered and discussed at regular team meetings and supervisions where actions and responsibilities were agreed and recorded.

Safety checks were completed regularly, and concerns were recorded and actioned.

A thorough business contingency plan was in place for staff to follow in case of emergency, detailing what actions to take in specific situations, including who to contact and where to go for shelter.

Policies and procedures were seen on file for key areas of governance such as Equality, Diversity and Human Rights, GDPR and person-centred care.

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.

People were supported to integrate into their community by taking part in volunteering opportunities, groups and initiatives. People were known by their neighbours by name.

Staff worked collaboratively with stakeholders, families and other providers involved in people’s support.

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.

Leaders made improvements where needed, staff told us that when shortfalls were identified, they could expect actions to be made to improve service delivery and that this was discussed at team meetings.

People told us that they were involved in support planning, evidence showed that people were approached for their views and ideas.

The provider was committed to ensuring that mandatory training remained up to date, but we saw no evidence showing career path progression for staff. This meant that though staff told us they were happy, there was little opportunity for professional development.