Snapethorpe Hall

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 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 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 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 said management were good and involved staff in processes and shared information. They service had clear visions and values, and these were discussed and shared amongst the staff. Staff put people at the centre of everything they did. The provider was proactive in seeking feedback. This included regular meetings with people and relatives. There was a culture of improvement at the service.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care. Leaders had the skills to lead effectively. Leaders had appropriate qualifications, experience and knowledge to deliver a safe service. The registered manager expressed they felt supported by the provider, and they had an open door policy and actively encouraged staff to share their feedback and ideas to improve on the service. The registered manager stated they embraced all feedback and worked hard to improve service for people and staff. However, not all the staff feedback was positive. Some staff raised concerns about the support received from the service and raised concerns about attending personal health appointments that were not paid, and some staff felt the support to cover shifts to allow to attend personal health appointments was lacking from the service. Feedback was mixed and some staff reported they felt encouraged and well supported by the management team. However, some staff reported the registered manager would spend more time with some staff than others and was not always consistent in their approach at work. For example, some people told us the responses they sometimes received from management could be mood dependent on that day, this feedback was shared with the registered manager.

The service had a complaints and whistleblowing policy, and these were displayed. The registered manager had a good understanding of duty of candour. People and relatives told us they felt confident they could speak up and their voice would be heard. They had the opportunity to complete regular surveys, and the regular monthly residents’ meetings were held.

The service did value diversity in their workforce. They always work towards a fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff told us they had regular daily flash meetings and handovers. We saw evidence of regular meetings and supervision sessions with staff and leaders. All staff knew the importance of speaking up to protect people and told us they were confident in reporting concerns and actions being taken by management team. Some staff told us they felt management had more time for some staff than others and that management had favourites and said they did not always feel their voices would be heard.

During the previous inspection, breaches were found in relation to good governance. We found the service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of this regulation. 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 acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate. There were clear and effective governance, management, and accountability arrangements. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to deliver a safe service. Performance was discussed during regular supervision sessions with staff. Notifications to inform of incidents taking place at the service were consistently submitted to external organisations as required. Record keeping systems were compliant with General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR). Staff knew who was responsible at all times.Staff told us they felt well informed about changes. Changes were discussed during regular meetings. The management team completed regular audits which supported oversight of the service.

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. We received feedback from a number of partners including fire safety, infection prevention and control and local authority. All of the feedback we received was positive and described a picture of an improving service. Staff and leaders engaged with people, communities, and partners to share learning with each other that resulted in continuous improvements to the service. They used these networks to identify new and innovative ideas to support better outcomes for people. The service understood its model of care and made robust assessments of people to make sure their needs could be met.

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 service incorporated feedback from surveys, meetings and observation for improvement and regularly reviewed to assess progress and effectiveness. Technology was used to improve the wellbeing of the people using services, and leaders told us they were introducing new electronic care records in the very near future. Lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents. The service completed regular meetings, surveys and analysed feedback and presented findings to people involved in the feedback.