66 Park Lane

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 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 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.

Processes were in place to promote equality and diversity for people and the staff team. The manager told us, “Person centred is 1 of our core values. I could see in my interview how much the locality manager cared about the home and staff, and this made me want to work for the organisation. Staff know the core values and would be able to tell you what they are. I feel the staff meet all these values. Innovation is another value, which is about not standing still and thinking outside the box.”

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.

A professional told us, “I think the new manager has really made a positive effect on the service. They are very experienced and have a good understanding of my client’s needs.”

A staff member told us, “The manager is always visible, and they are approachable. You can ask for advice when you need to.”

We observed the manager to be supportive to both people and staff and motivated to ensure the people living in the home were living their best lives.

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

People living in the services were asked for their views and were given the opportunity to speak up on a daily basis both informally and in meetings. The manager told us action plans were devised from these conversations. This meant people’s views were listened to and drove improvement.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We observed staff listening to people and responding to their concerns. Staff knew what incidents to report and how to report them.

The service investigated incidents thoroughly and shared outcomes with people and relevant stakeholders. We saw evidence of change as a result of incidents which had occurred.

The manager told us they received safety alerts from the government, local authority and CQC which informed them of upcoming risks along with themes and trends to ensure the provider could take appropriate action to mitigate these risks.

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.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff and the management team understood the importance of reporting any changes to people’s wellbeing. They kept detailed records of the support people had received. There were effective governance processes in place to monitor and improve the service. Where audits identified shortfalls, any actions were implemented and reviewed.

There were security measures in place to ensure all paper and electronic information was stored safely and securely. The provider submitted information to partner agencies when required.

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.

Professionals, staff, and manager shared with us positive examples of collaborative working in partnership. One professional told us, “I have always found the staff at 66 Park Lane to be welcoming and informative. Staff know people very well and keep me updated with any changes.”

The service strived to focus on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. Staff and leaders were working to establish a consistent approach to improvement including monitoring progress and outcomes.

We reviewed evidence in team meetings, audits and quality assurance surveys which assured us learning was embedded, and the provider was continually striving to make improvements.

The provider was responsive during our inspection and the manager shared with us several ideas of how they wanted to improve people’s experience, these included introducing new activities both inside and outside of the home.