Greville House

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 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 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.

The provider had instilled a culture of compassion and person centred care. This was reflected through observations, feedback from people and relatives and staff conversations. The registered manager told us part of their vision was to support people to live fulfilled lives. Future plans included continuing work to secure stronger community links to local schools, another local care home and the local scouts group.

One staff member told us, “I would describe the culture in the home as it is their home and we are just popping in to support.” A professional told us, “The team should be proud of the high standard of compassionate, person-centred care they provider.”

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. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager. People, relatives and staff told us the management team was approachable, they knew who they were and felt confident any issues raised would be addressed. Throughout the inspection we observed people access the manager’s office and the interactions between the manager and people were kind, compassionate and caring and showed us the manager knew people well. The registered manager told us, “I love my job. If I have made one person smile I have done a good job.”

Feedback from relatives supported observations. A relative told us, “[Registered Manager] deals with any issues and it is always a pleasant experience dealing with them.” Another relative told us, “It really has been about partnership working.” A further relative told us, “Management team [are] open and approachable.”

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

Staff told us they felt able to raise any concerns, should they have any, and that they would be listened to. One staff member told us, “There is also a whistleblowing policy and staff are protected when raising concerns.” Another staff member told us, “Managers are always available to speak to.”

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

Staff were supported to be included in conversations about the running of the home. Formal systems were in place such as staff meetings and supervisions. The registered manager also informed us about the ad hoc conversations held with staff to seek their views on implementing improvements for people living at the home or for staff well being.

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.

The provider had developed a schedule of audits that monitored key aspects of the running of the home. This schedule ensured safety and quality were continuously monitored ensuring the best outcomes for people. There was additional oversight by the director of the service who maintained regular contact with the service and provided support to the registered manager. Although we noted some improvements needed in the environment and records, the registered manager was receptive and took prompt action to address these issues and put systems in place to ensure these improvements were embedded into practice.

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.

External professionals provided positive feedback about the way the home worked in partnership with them. A professional told us, “Communication is always excellent, with timely updates and a collaborative approach to care.”

The provider 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.

The registered manager told us how they kept up to date with changes in the adult social care landscape. This included attending local care shows and receiving updates from partners. The registered manager ensured learning was shared with another care home owned by the director to enable any improvements made would benefit the most people.

Systems were in place to learn from incidents and accidents to reduce risk for people. People and staff had opportunity to share ideas which were listened to and acted on ensuring continual learning. Staff were supported through training and supervision which supported on-going development to meet people’s needs.

The provider had installed CCTV in some of the communal areas of the building. This was in place to review and learn from any accidents or incidents that had occurred in these communal areas. People had been consulted about this and there were clear systems and processes in place to support the use of this in line with people’s rights and good practice guidance.