Gracelands 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 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.

Quality assurance systems were effective. There was robust oversight of the quality of the service to make sure people received good care.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The registered managers had excellent oversight of the home. The care manager completed audits which fed into the registered managers’ monthly audit, which was robust, comprehensive and gave an overall view of performance. Meetings generated action plans which were monitored to ensure they were completed and discussed at the following meeting. Findings from audits, safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and complaints were analysed to identify any improvements and to develop the service. Feedback from people was sought in relation to catering, housekeeping and general feedback on the quality of care. Staff feedback was also sought regularly. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, and detailed reports were available analysing survey results, offering context, explanation and support. For example, offering support to arrange transport if visitors had difficulty travelling from the town centre. All staff understood their roles and responsibilities, working together exceptionally well to meet people’s needs. Staff told us, “The managers all get involved with people, so they know them well. Their changing needs (care records) are always up to date.”

Managers were open and honest with people, and their relatives, following notifiable safety incidents. Genuine apologies were offered in writing and action taken to investigate, learn and minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.