Langley View Residential Home Also known as Langley View

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 remained the same. 

The provider did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people with a disability and autistic people and their communities There was a lack of strategic oversight and direction. This impacted on the standard of care and the availability of opportunity for people to explore different things for example volunteering or work placement, co production of Systems and processes within the home. For example. supporting people to be responsible for tasks within the home, like checking the fire alarm giving them some responsibility and enhancing their everyday living tasks. Without a clear strategy rooted in transparency and engagement, the service lacked the leadership needed to create an environment where people felt valued and understood.

The provider and registered manager did not always understand the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support or embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. We spoke to the registered manager about our findings and while she responded it appeared that there were several inaccuracies in the response. This meant that the version of events described by staff were not always accurate. The staff team worked closely with external partners including professionals with expertise in supporting people with a learning disability, GP’s district nurses and other health care professionals.  

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 speak up if something was not working well and the registered manager was open to suggestions. All staff gave positive feedback in relation to the management team. A staff member told us, “I feel listened to and that my opinion matters.” Another staff member told us, “We are comfortable challenging team members, and it works both ways.”  

 The provider valued diversity in their workforce that was an inclusive environment that reflected a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

People were cared for by staff from different ethnic backgrounds and a staff team who were aware of diversity and what it meant in the workplace. The service was inclusive and where everyone belonged. For example, staff were able to talk about people’s religious and or ethnic backgrounds and were interested in diverse cultures.  

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with staff and others when appropriate. We found there was a lack of management oversight in particular outside of usual office hours. We observed several issues that would not align to person centred, dignified and compassionate care.  This lack of leadership presence during evenings and weekends meant that people did not receive consistently high standards of care, that they could expect to receive. We spoke to the registered manager about this, and she told us that the staff on duty had individual meetings to address the lack of person-centred care, and this was being monitored going forward.

 The provider completed a wide range of audits on the quality and safety of the service. Audits viewed showed detailed criteria, clear responsibility, and actions when issues had been identified. An action improvement plan was in place and following the assessment the registered manager told us they had arranged a holiday for residents to enable the redecoration and refurbishment of the home. 

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. The staff team had developed good partnership working with other professionals and partners. This helped provide holistic care that was joined up and seamless.      

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The registered manager told us they are constantly striving to make improvements that were sustainable. There was little evidence to support this strategy.  

This service scored 61 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people with a disability and autistic people and their communities There was a lack of strategic oversight and direction. This impacted on the standard of care and the availability of opportunity for people to explore different things for example volunteering or work placement, co production of Systems and processes within the home. For example. supporting people to be responsible for tasks within the home, like checking the fire alarm giving them some responsibility and enhancing their everyday living tasks. Without a clear strategy rooted in transparency and engagement, the service lacked the leadership needed to create an environment where people felt valued and understood.

The provider and registered manager did not always understand the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support or embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. We spoke to the registered manager about our findings and while she responded it appeared that there were several inaccuracies in the response. This meant that the version of events described by staff were not always accurate. The staff team worked closely with external partners including professionals with expertise in supporting people with a learning disability, GP’s district nurses and other health care professionals.  

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 speak up if something was not working well and the registered manager was open to suggestions. All staff gave positive feedback in relation to the management team. A staff member told us, “I feel listened to and that my opinion matters.” Another staff member told us, “We are comfortable challenging team members, and it works both ways.”  

The provider valued diversity in their workforce that was an inclusive environment that reflected a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

People were cared for by staff from different ethnic backgrounds and a staff team who were aware of diversity and what it meant in the workplace. The service was inclusive and where everyone belonged. For example, staff were able to talk about people’s religious and or ethnic backgrounds and were interested in diverse cultures.  

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with staff and others when appropriate. We found there was a lack of management oversight in particular outside of usual office hours. We observed several issues that would not align to person centred, dignified and compassionate care.  This lack of leadership presence during evenings and weekends meant that people did not receive consistently high standards of care, that they could expect to receive. We spoke to the registered manager about this, and she told us that the staff on duty had individual meetings to address the lack of person-centred care, and this was being monitored going forward.

 The provider completed a wide range of audits on the quality and safety of the service. Audits viewed showed detailed criteria, clear responsibility, and actions when issues had been identified. An action improvement plan was in place and following the assessment the registered manager told us they had arranged a holiday for residents to enable the redecoration and refurbishment of the home. 

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. The staff team had developed good partnership working with other professionals and partners. This helped provide holistic care that was joined up and seamless.    

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The registered manager told us they are constantly striving to make improvements that were sustainable. There was little evidence to support this strategy.