Silver Oaks Residential Care 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 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 68 (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. Values including personalised care, enabling people to live meaningful lives, being part of the community and never feeling lonely. Staff feedback about the culture and shared direction of the service was positive. They described a personalised approach to care with a strong emphasis on people as individuals and recognising their unique qualities. The service had informative brochures showing the history of the building.

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. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager, who they described as supportive and approachable. The registered manager was receptive to our feedback throughout the assessment process and acted where we highlighted shortfalls. For example, where there were shortfalls in care records, they updated them promptly and provided evidence to the assessment team. There were processes in place for the registered manager to communicate with people, relatives and staff. However, we received mixed feedback about the accessibility of the registered manager for relatives. Comments included, “I’ve had contact with [registered manager] by email, but when you are at the home, they will usually be in their office”, “They showed us around when [Name] first arrived. They were obliging, efficient and open. Since then, I’ve not really seen them around” and [Registered manager] seems to spend a lot of time in their office. They should be more visible, especially as it’s not exactly a big home.” The registered manager demonstrated they were open and compassionate throughout the assessment process and told us they would review this feedback to make improvements.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they were confident in speaking up and a whistleblowing policy was in place. Staff had opportunities to give their views through staff meetings, supervision meetings and feedback questionnaires. Staff were heard at shift handover explaining changing needs to other staff and discussing routines and giving their opinions on current issues within the home. Staff were encouraged to speak up, and the registered manager operated an open-door policy. The registered manager was also accessible to staff being on call when not actively working in the service.

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. All staff and managers describeda shared commitment to good practice and an open approach to problems and issues. Staff felt well-supported in doing their jobs and spoke positively about teamwork, shared values and care for people. A staff member told us, “We all get on as a team. Sometimes there are disputes, but we sort it out by talking it through.” Staff described management support for them to achieve a good work-life balance, and care and flexibility when health or family circumstances required it.

The provider 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 shared this securely with others when appropriate. The registered manager and leadership team were committed to ensuring people received a high level of care. There was a clear staff structure within the home and staff understood their roles and accountability according to seniority. There were systems in place to identify and manage current and future risks although we found these were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement. For example, audits had not identified the issues around monitoring records, strategies to support people when they became distressed and some environmental issues. Reporting any concerns or incidents to others was done via secure channels maintaining people’s confidentiality, and management and senior staff worked together to share these responsibilities. The provider maintained oversight of the service through their representatives who undertook periodical auditing and analysis of the service and provided information and guidance to support the registered manager.

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. Staff arranged support from partner services and continued people’s regular routine health checks with dentists, opticians and chiropodists. Professionals who regularly visited the home told us staff were well informed and knew people’s needs. People were supported to interact with the local community and had attended events and activities at local venues, for example the community centre. Information was readily available to people about the events and activities offered in the local community. The service held events and invited the local community in to help forge links and raise awareness and understanding of the service.

The provider was focussed on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system, the changes they had made required further embedding to ensure improvements were sustained. There had been improvements and developments to auditing processes. The registered manager attended regular meetings with management from the provider’s other services and was supported by the providers’ representatives, which enabled them to keep up to date with key changes and share best practice. They provided examples where they had identified short falls and acted to address this and ensure lessons learnt was shared with staff. For example, they had evaluated staff training and identified staff had more positive outcomes from training that was provided face to face. They had shared this with the provider and made amendments to how training was delivered to staff to best support their engagement and understanding.