Seymour House-Northwood

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.

The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We identified breaches of legal regulations relating to good governance.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The culture at the service was not always person-centred. Staff did not always respond to people’s individual needs or provide opportunities for people to be independent, make choices and stay active. However, people using the service, relatives and staff told us they were happy and felt well supported. They felt the service was caring and there was an inclusive and open culture. Comments from people and their relatives included, “They are friendly, and we always have a laugh together”, “As soon as I came here it felt welcoming” and “They are very good. Just like a family.”

The registered manager was experienced and had worked at the service for a long time. They had a management in care qualification. Staff, people using the service and relatives told us they were able to speak with the registered manager and deputy manager. They felt the service was well led. Their comments included, “I think managers are excellent and very supportive”, “[Registered manager] is brilliant. All the staff are lovely” and “I think the staff at the home are exceptional. Managers are helpful and informative.”

Some staff told us they did not know who to report concerns to other than the registered manager. Some staff told us they would not feel confident speaking up about others. There were procedures to enable staff and others to speak up when something went wrong. We discussed staff feedback with the registered manager for them to look at ways to promote staff confidence and enable them to speak up if needed.

The provider ensured workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. There were procedures to ensure staff were not discriminated against. Staff told us they were supported to take time off and could request additional support when needed.

The provider’s systems and processes had not always been effective in identifying where improvements were needed. The provider had carried out regular checks and audits of the service. However, these had found no improvements were needed. Despite this, we identified that care plans and risk assessments were not personalised and sometimes included inappropriate terms or guidance. We also found staff did not always provide person-centred care.

There were management systems to organise the service, and the staff told us the registered manager ran a ‘tight ship.’ There were clear structures and routines which helped ensure tasks were completed and staff communicated clearly with each other. There were effective systems for asking stakeholders for feedback, including meetings and surveys. The findings of these were analysed and acted on. Managers responded appropriately when things went wrong, making sure staff were aware of required improvements.

Staff worked with other professionals to help ensure people received the support they needed. For example, liaising with health and social care professionals. The registered manager worked closely with the local authority and other registered managers to share ideas, learn from different experiences and discuss best practice.

The provider had systems for learning and improving. These included analysing accidents, incidents, complaints and feedback from stakeholders. Staff undertook a wide range of training, and the registered manager encouraged them to share their learning and knowledge with others during meetings and workshops.