Treetops Court Care Home Also known as 1-2655136637

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Whilst the provider promoted a positive vision and values based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement this was not consistently experienced by staff.

The provider’s statement of purpose highlighted a dedication to offering personalised care tailored to meet people’s individual needs. The registered manager demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring the service was safe, effective and a positive place for people to live. They spoke with passion about the service, the residents and the staff team.

Staff feedback about the culture and leadership was mixed. Some staff told us they worked well together and described a culture built on openness, shared purpose and mutual respect. However, other staff raised concerns about leadership and told us they did not feel listened to when raising issues, particularly in relation to staffing levels. This indicated the provider’s values and culture were not consistently experienced across the service.

Although systems were in place to encourage staff to share feedback, such as a suggestion box, these had not always been effective. At the time of feedback, the area manager had begun arranging meetings to enable staff to raise concerns confidentially, as no issues had been raised directly with the management team. This demonstrated that action was being taken; however, the need for this highlighted that a culture of openness and confidence to speak up was not fully embedded.

Leaders demonstrated they understood the context in which care, treatment and support were delivered and promoted a culture based on openness, inclusivity and respect. They had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead the service effectively and were described by people and their relatives as approachable, responsive and visible within the home.

One relative told us the registered manager was approachable, and they felt confident any concerns would be addressed promptly. People and relatives consistently described the management and staff team as supportive and engaged in day-to-day interactions. A member of staff told us, “The registered manager’s door is always open, they spend time everyday walking around the home, engaging positively with people and staff.”

Most staff spoke positively about the management team and described them as approachable and supportive. However, some staff shared less positive views and told us they did not always feel supported by management. The provider had recognised this and was taking action to ensure all staff had consistent opportunities to share feedback and feel supported. This demonstrated a commitment to improving staff experience and embedding a positive and inclusive leadership culture across the service.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

There was mixed feedback from staff regarding their confidence in raising concerns. Some staff reported feeling comfortable and confident they would be listened to. One staff member told us, “The registered manager was approachable, supportive, and operated an open-door policy.” However, this was not consistently reflected across the staff team. Some staff told us they did not feel able to speak up especially around staffing levels or that they would always be heard.

Although systems were in place to encourage staff feedback, including an anonymous suggestion box this was found to be empty at the time of inspection, which indicated these systems were not being effectively utilised. This demonstrated the provider had not fully embedded a culture where staff felt confident to speak up.

A whistleblowing policy was in place and accessible to all staff, supporting transparency and accountability within the service.

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 staff team was made up of individuals from a range of diverse backgrounds. Staff told us they felt comfortable and welcomed within the service, and no concerns were raised in relation to equality, diversity or inclusion. Staff consistently described a positive culture where diversity was recognised and respected.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and effective governance arrangements in place.

There was effective oversight of the quality and safety of the service. Staff had clearly defined roles and responsibilities and were supported to carry out their duties in line with best practice.
Regular safety checks were completed to monitor the condition of the premises and equipment. This helped to ensure a safe environment was maintained for people living at the service.

The registered manager and wider team completed a range of audits to monitor performance and identify areas for improvement. Where themes, patterns or trends were identified, action plans were developed to address these. Learning from audits was shared with staff, and regular daily meetings supported a culture of open communication, transparency and accountability.

Visiting professionals told us concerns were shared promptly, which supported effective partnership working and helped to ensure safe outcomes for people.

Overall, governance systems and quality assurance processes were effective in monitoring the quality of care and support. These enabled leaders to identify learning, take action and drive continuous improvement across the service.

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 provider worked effectively with a range of external professionals, including social workers, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, GPs and dietitians. These relationships supported timely, coordinated responses to people’s changing needs and helped to ensure continuity of care.

Visiting professionals spoke positively about their experiences of working with the service. One professional told us, “Staff have the right attitude and communicate well, they know their residents.” Professionals described good communication, working together to resolve issuesand mutual respect, which supported effective partnership working.

Staff supported people to make decisions and respected their rights. Where people lacked capacity, decisions were made in their best interests with the involvement of relatives or appropriate representatives. One professional told us “I have spoken to the manager in this care home many times along with nursing and care staff regarding residents and advocacy partners. Any comments I have made, or concerns raised have been listened to and recorded.”

Records confirmed regular communication and information sharing with external professionals. Recommendations from professionals were incorporated into people’s care and support, which helped to ensure care remained consistent and responsive. This collaborative approach supported joined-up working, reduced delays and improved outcomes for people.

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 registered manager demonstrated a strong commitment to continuous learning and development to improve outcomes for people living at the home. They used information gathered from audits, feedback from residents and their families, meetings, surveys, and observations of day-to-day practice to identify areas for improvement and implement changes to how care and support were delivered. At the entrance of the home, there was a ‘you said, we did’ board, which showed the provider was listening to feedback and taking action in response.

The provider also worked collaboratively with partners. This supported ongoing learning and helped ensure care remained responsive and tailored to people’s individual needs.