Magnolia House 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 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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 57 (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 demonstrate a clear, shared vision, strategy, or culture founded on transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity, inclusion, and engagement. There was limited evidence that the provider consistently understood and responded to the needs, experiences, and challenges of people using the service and their local communities.

The provider had not established effective systems, forums, or communication methods to promote their values and vision to people using the service. As a result, there were limited opportunities for people to understand the provider's values, or for the provider to gain a better understanding of the individuals they supported and their needs.

Staff said, "Management are generally approachable, however occasionally there could be opportunities to strengthen communication and approachability in order to strengthen the team."

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People and their relatives did not know the registered manager well, with some not even knowing who they were. However, they spoke positively about the rest of the leadership team who were present on the day of the assessment.

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

The provider had a freedom to speak up policy in place and staff felt they could speak up and be listened to if they had any concerns. Staff described the management team as approachable.

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 described to us personal situations where they felt they had been supported and valued by management and team leaders.

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 others when appropriate.

There were audits in place to monitor the safety and quality of the care being provided to people at the service. However, they failed to identify the concerns we found and are discussed throughout this report.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

Whilst professionals that worked with the service spoke positively about their relationship, we did identify that notifiable incidents were not always reported to relevant partners, such as CQC.

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.

Whilst we did find some evidence of learning from incidents the provider did not share anything further on how they focussed on innovation or improvements at the home. We also found no consistent evidence that audits were reviewed by management to identify areas for improvement.