Stockingate Residential 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 changed to requires improvement.

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

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. We have requested an action plan from the provider as to they plan to make improvements to the governance within the service.

This service scored 57 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

We spoke with leaders and staff within the service in to identify if there was a shared vision within the service. Leaders within the service told us, “We support people to do with them and not for them, we focus on what people can do. Ensuring people can be supported to do things themselves. A home from home.” However, this vision was not widely understood by all staff. The service has advised us how they can improve on an overall shared vision and values throughout the service.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had compassionate leadership, which was demonstrated by leaders within the service and reflected by staff. Leaders in the service led with honestly and were proactive in making positive changes within the service when feedback was provided throughout the assessment. However, there was a lack of oversight from leaders of care planning documentation. Audits were regularly completed by leaders; however, these did not identify issues with documentation which led to a risk of ineffective care, treatment and support for people. The provider has advised us how they will make improvements to strengthen leadership within the service, having already implemented some changes.

The service did not always foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People felt they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

People and staff understood procedures of how to speak up and felt confident to raise concerns with leaders. There was information available to staff on how to speak up, however, information was not available to people, and there was no other process in place for people to provide feedback about their care and treatment. Staff told us they felt well supported to speak up and that issues would be dealt with appropriately by leaders within the service. When asked if staff felt able to speak up to leaders, 1 staff member told us, “Yes, I do. I had to raise a concern when I first started, and leaders dealt with it straight away.” People and relatives using the service provided mixed feedback regarding whether they felt leaders in the service would listen to their concerns. One person told us, “Couldn’t be better. Complaints are sorted straight away.” The service has advised us on how they plan to implement changes following mixed feedback from people and relatives.

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

There was a diverse workforce in place. Recruitment processes showed the service employed staff from a variety of backgrounds. Staff within the service agreed there was workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. One staff member told us, “Our staff team feels like a family.”

The service 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.

There was a lack of robust governance systems and processes in the service. Staff did not always complete contemporaneous records for people. There were auditing processes of care documentation in place which both senior care staff and leaders of the service completed. However, these audits failed to identify mistakes in documentation such as level of food diet, which placed people at risk of harm. Handover documentation failed to highlight important information for people to be provided safe care and treatment. The service has advised us how they plan to improve systems and processes to ensure robust governance, having already implemented some positive changes.

The service 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 service worked well with local partners to ensure a collaborative approach to care and treatment. Professionals told us the service worked well with them to support people. One professional told us, “It’s a pleasure working with [the service].” Another professional told us, “They [the service] are prompt at informing us of any changes.”

The service did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

There were processes in place to discuss learning in the service however, there was a lack of proactive innovation for improvement. The service primarily supported people living with dementia. There was a lack of innovation to maximise communication and orientation for people, utilising relevant research. The service employed activities staff, however we observed a notable lack of activities on site. There was a lack of initiative as to how to best utilise activities staff within the service. Staff advised us they felt there needed to be more activities within the service. One staff member told us, “I feel we need more meaningful activities.” People and relatives agreed there was a lack of meaningful activities for those who were cared for in bed. One relative told us, “There are no activities in the bedroom.” The service has been proactive in taking on board feedback and advised us how they will improve regarding learning and innovation within the service, having already implemented some changes.