The Oast

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 71 (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 and the registered manager were all passionate about providing the best care for people and making sure they were content and supported. A staff member described the vision of the service as enabling people to be empowered and to believe in their strengths and abilities. Staff and relatives of people who lived there spoke positively about the leadership and professionalism of the registered manager and the service. There was a culture of caring, openness and belonging and ensuring the home felt like a home.
 

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 registered manager was professional and energetic and had the skills to lead the service effectively. All staff spoke positively about the service and the registered manager and felt able to raise matters with them. One staff member said, “It’s a fantastic place to work and its small and its home for people”. People we spoke with told us they were positive about how the service was managed by the registered manager. One relative told us “They have family/relative meetings and they do discuss things like the garden. If I have anything to say I will speak to (registered manager). Like the signage, he didn’t know where the toilet was, someone takes him now, when he was better they got it all done. I would recommend it to anyone”.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service has policies on whistleblowing and freedom to speak up and all staff we spoke to were able to explain the process and how they could access the policies when they needed them..

We were given an example of a whistleblowing which was handled sensitively and where all people concerned were supported by the service. Staff were able to explain how and who they would report issues to.
 

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 morale was good, and they felt they were cared for and treated fairly by the registered manager and the provider. Staff gave personal examples of how the registered manager had supported them through a flexible work pattern to support their work life balance. We saw examples where people were supported to transition internally to new roles and it was stressed that this would not happen until staff were ready and felt able to do so. We saw that staff received regular appraisals and could access training and progression when they needed or would be supported to strive towards.
 

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The registered manager was supported by central audits as well as service led audits and monitoring of staff. The service had systems in place which monitored and spot-checked care to review whether it was safe and person-centred. Incidents and accidents were analysed to identify themes, which enabled the service to make changes to reduce risk.

However, care plans did not consistently or sufficiently explain identified risks, how these risks applied to individuals, or provide clear guidance for staff on how to deliver care safely. In addition, care plans did not clearly outline the actions staff should take to identify early signs of concern or respond appropriately to changes in people’s needs. The service had failed to ensure that the kitchen was sufficiently hygienic and that all staff were aware of maintenance checks they should complete. However, the kitchen was subject to a deep clean and staff provided guidance and checks on their understanding.
 

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 told us they worked in partnership with a range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, District Nurses and chiropodists and also facilitated access to alternative therapies and therapy dog services to support people’s health and wellbeing. Attention was also given to people’s spiritual needs, helping to promote meaningful connections, enhance partnerships with local services, and support individuals to remain engaged with their communities.
 

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.

We saw examples of where the service had identified concerns and where change had been required, these were shared across the service through both team briefings, handovers and individual guidance. The registered manager had told us how they had made small changes that had positively impacted on people and how they socialised with each other so enhancing their state of wellbeing. They also shared future development plans, including adapting the garden with raised beds to enable people to engage in past hobbies and meaningful activities, supporting their independence, wellbeing and sense of purpose.
We heard people, their relatives and staff refer to the service as people’s homes and respected people’s individual choice and consent.