Cross Street Residential 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 82 (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.

Staff were supported by managers to deliver consistently safe, person-centred, and inclusive care and support to people in line with the provider’s vision and values for the service. Systems and processes had been designed in line with this vision and focused on people and meeting their individual needs. The managers routinely used individual and group meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles.

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 service continued to have a stable and experienced management team in place. The registered manager was a ‘cluster’ manager who was responsible for managing another of the providers similar sized care homes in the local area. The senior team leader was permanently based in the care home and was responsible for its day-to-day management. Both managers understood the context in which the service delivered care and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and the provider. They undertook continuous learning and development to maintain their skills and knowledge. People were positive about the ongoing leadership approach of the managers who they consistently described as approachable, supportive and effective at running the care home. A relative told us, “I think [name of registered manager] who has known my [family member] for many years continues to do a fantastic job running the care home with the support of the team leader and the rest of the dedicated staff team who work at Cross Street.” An external care professional added, “The managers are accessible and engage with staff and clients in a friendly way. They are always available to listen to my care/treatment ideas and if I have any concerns.” Staff were equally complimentary about the leadership approach of the managers. “The manager [registered] and the senior team leader both do an excellent job managing the home. They are both very experienced, always supportive and accessible.”

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

People living in the care home and their relatives were comfortable raising any concerns they might have with the managers and felt their views were taken seriously and acted upon. People were provided with easy to understand, accessible information about how they could report concerns and how these would be dealt with by the provider. Staff were encouraged and supported to speak up if they had any concerns. They were supported to have their say and make suggestions for improvements through regular individual supervision and group meetings with the managers and fellow co-workers.

The service strongly valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair culture which had improved equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff were valued, supported by the services managers who treated them equally and fairly. A member of staff told us, “I feel our diversity is respected by our employer and we our valued by them as a workforce.” Managers understood the importance of having a fair and inclusive workplace environment for staff to work in. For example, staff had opportunities for career progression, were offered flexible work options and had their diverse cultural and religious needs respected. Staff were also supported through relevant training and supervision to inform their knowledge and understanding of equality, inclusivity and fairness in the workplace. For example, the provider had introduced a Diversity Inclusion Strategy to ensure their culture remained inclusive and diverse. They had recruited quality checkers using an inclusive advertising and recruitment programme which used easy to understand information about their job roles and responsibilities, and online videos aimed specifically at people with learning disabilities. In addition, the provider has established an intercultural, LGBTQ, disability and gender networks to support their employees. The providers recent staff survey indicated people working for them felt they were treated with fairness and respected irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion.

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.

Members of the providers leadership board, and senior area operations and quality assurance managers routinely visited the care home and undertook their own monitoring checks, audits and reviews of the service, including a mock ‘CQC’ style assessment. The outcome of all these checks and audits fed into the providers centralised systems which recorded and reviewed all the key service data, to identify themes and trends which might emerge. The provider’s quality and governance teams ensured appropriate action was taken to learn from any events or incidents that occurred.

The managers understood and demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements. They also understood their responsibility to provide honest information, suitable support and to apply duty of candour where appropriate.

We saw the service's previous CQC inspection report was displayed in the care home and easy to access on the provider's website. The display of the ratings is a legal requirement, to inform people, those seeking information about the service and visitors of our judgments.

The service clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Managers and staff worked closely with relevant external health and social care professionals and bodies and regularly shared information and learning with these partners. They followed guidance and recommendations they received from these professionals to support staff learning and improve the safety and quality of the service they provided. These community care professionals included GPs and other medical staff, learning disability and district nurses, social workers, speech and language therapists, and physiotherapists. The provider also regularly engaged in local forums and online groups to work with other similar types of services where they could share learning and best practice to continuously improve. These national and local forums and networks included, Restraint Reduction, The Social Care Futures Movement, Mencap, The Voluntary Organisations Disability Group (VODG) and STOMP.

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.

The service had a proactive culture of continuous learning and improvement. Audits and checks the provider conducted were routinely analysed to identify performance shortfalls and learn lessons. When lessons needed to be learnt, the provider developed time specific action plans which set out clearly what, how and when they needed to take steps to improve the service they provided people. The managers told us they had a learning from practice group that met regularly to share organisational learning and agree actions to improve. Staff confirmed information about any lessons learnt and action plans developed as a result were always shared with them during individual and group supervision meetings with the services managers.