Albert Suites at Battersea Place

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 inspection, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection, the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was now consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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 safe, person-centred 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 the vision and values and focused on people and meeting their individual needs. The manager routinely used individual and group meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles. Staff were supported by managers deliver consistently safe, equitable, person-centred, and inclusive care and support to people based on the services own shared culture and values. A member of staff told us, “I think providing person-centred care to people is our number one value and what I’m most proud about working for this company.”

The service 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.

At our last inspection the care home had a manager in day-to-day charge, but they were not registered with us. At this inspection we found the service had a new manager who was also not registered with the CQC, but they had applied to be. The way the care home was now managed had improved with the appointment of a new suitably experienced and qualified service manager and clinical nurse lead. We received a few negative comments from people about the high turnover of managers the care home had experienced in recent years, but most expressed being satisfied with the leadership approach of the new service manager who had now been in post for over a year. Typical feedback included, “The management keeps changing which is not good for the home as it destabilises the place. They need a more stable management culture here,” “I think the new managers are doing a great job and seem more accessible than before. The staff seem a happier now they have some permanent managers in post” and “The new managers are really good leaders. If there are issues, they are very open to discussing and resolving them quickly”.

The feedback we received from staff about how the care home was being managed were also mixed, but most were complimentary about the leadership approach of the service’s new management team. Staff typically described the services manager and clinical lead as approachable. One member of staff told us, “Unfortunately, managers are always changing here, which does affect staff morale and our ability to provide people with consistently good care, but hopefully this new lot will stay the distance this time.”

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

The care home had an open and transparent culture where people, relatives, external health and social care professionals, and staff were all encouraged to raise concerns without fear. The provider used a range of methods to gather people’s views about what the care home did well or might do better. The provider received regular feedback through various forums people were encouraged to attend including residents’ meetings and participate in bi-annual stakeholder satisfaction surveys. The manager told us they explained the complaints process before people moved into the home. A relative said, “In my experience, the manager does take action when I have raised an issue.”

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during regular individual and group meetings with their line managers and fellow co-workers. The provider had a ‘Speak up’ policy that was available to all staff. Staff felt able to brings things to the attention of the managers.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff told us they were part of a diverse team, treated equally and fairly, and they felt able to speak up. Staff told us the manager was supportive and reported feeling cared for, respected, valued, and listened to by them. One member of staff said, “This is a nice place to work, and we work well as a team.”

Managers understood the importance of having a fair and inclusive workplace for all staff to work in. Staff were provided support through relevant training and supervision to inform their knowledge and understanding of equality, inclusivity, and fairness in the workplace.

The service 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 act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last inspection we found the way the provider operated their governance systems needed to improve as it failed to pick up or address several issues we identified at that time. At this inspection we found the provider had improved the effectiveness of how they operated their governance systems. These systems were routinely used to check the quality and safety of the care and support the service provided to people and to identify performance shortfalls. This included audits in relation to care planning, medicines, falls, infection control and health and safety amongst others. When shortfalls were found they were discussed and reviewed at various quality assurance meetings that focused on the care homes ‘CQC readiness’, incidents, care plans, staff training and residents experience. The outcome of these meetings was then incorporated into the providers own action plans for improvement. The provider had also introduced an electronic care planning system that automatically alerted managers and staff when a care plan or risk assessments was due to be reviewed.Managers and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their governance roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing, monitoring, and managing the quality and safety of the service they provided.

The quality of information recorded and maintained in people’s care records, and records relating to the management of the service was sufficiently detailed, up to date and accurate.

Managers understood their responsibilities in relation to regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents. Our records indicated they continued to notify the CQC in a timely manner about any incidents and events they were legally required to. They also understood their responsibility to apply duty of candour and where appropriate apologised when things went wrong.

The services previous CQC inspection report was conspicuously displayed in the care home 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 understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The provider shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Managers and staff told us they worked closely with various external health and social care professionals and bodies who they regularly consulted and welcomed their views and advice.

The service 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 contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider promoted a learning culture within the service. Staff received on-going mandatory training and training to meet people’s specific needs. Incidents and near misses were reviewed to ensure lessons were learnt collectively, and quality audits were reviewed and acted upon. Leaders valued the input of others and actively sought the views and suggestions of people, relatives, staff and professionals to drive improvements.

A service and audit improvement action plan were in place to monitor progress against any areas of improvement that had bene identified. Quality assurance meetings included continuous improvement and learning which demonstrated the providers commitment to maintaining and improving the quality of service that people received.