Allambie 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 inspection we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained 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.

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 had a shared vision and culture, but improvement was required to ensure it was embedded throughout the service.

The provider told us their values were on display in the home for staff to access and follow. We saw these included dignity and respect, individuality and choice, honesty and integrity and partnership and family. However, staff could not recall the provider’s values to ensure they were fully embedded into their day-to-day activities within the home. The provider told us these would be reinforced in staff supervision meetings.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service and generally felt supported in their roles. Staff spoke of recent improvements in care delivery which was indicative of an improved culture in the home. Staff and managers spoke positively about the care being provided and the people they supported.

Since the last inspection managers had increased observations of staff so they could provide clear leadership and model good practice. Some staff told us they had attended supervision meetings with their manager to support them in their roles. One manager told us, “I have done a few care shifts to show staff this is my expectation, this is what I do so could you please do it as well."

The provider had leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support to create a positive culture within the home. Changes in management of the home meant more time was needed to demonstrate high standards of care were consistently maintained.

A new management team had been appointed since our last inspection, and they were embedding new processes and systems. This was to ensure any issues of concern were pre-empted and addressed as opposed to taking a reactive approach. We saw a training manager directing staff on the floor to help ensure policies and procedures were followed.

The new manager had been in post for 9 weeks and had very recently submitted their application to become registered with us. The deputy manager had been in their role since June 2025 and described a positive working relationship with the new manager.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the service and the new management team. Comments included, “They seem as if they are getting on top of things” and "I am safe. I have got a family here to look after me (referring to staff), [Manager] is a star."

Staff spoke positively about the new managers and the provider and felt they were given opportunities to raise issues when needed. Comments included: “The management and the owner are really helpful," and "They are really brilliant, really nice and helpful. Since they have been here there has been an improvement. They are excellent."

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

People were positive about the staff and told us if they had any concerns they would speak with the staff or the manager. Relatives told us they had regular contact with the home and felt at ease to raise any issues with staff if needed. One relative told us, “The new staff, new deputy manager and manager seems very nice, very efficient, it always feels warm and friendly can’t fault the staff.” Another relative said, “I can discuss any care problem with them, I try to speak to them each time I visit.”

Staff told us they felt able to speak up and felt listened to. One staff member told us, “Everybody speaks up, we have a group discussion. We put different plans on the plate so the manager can decide and give us a good resolution." Another staff member said, “The management are really nice and if anything happens, we can go and speak to them, and they deal with it very nicely."

Information about policies to support a culture of speaking up such as whistleblowing and complaints were available within the home. We were told no complaints had been received since the last inspection.

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 told us they felt included in decisions about the service and spoke positively of the provider. Whilst training continued to be available for staff online, the provider had considered other learning methods for staff. A training manager was available to support staff, and the deputy manager told us how they had been supporting staff to use the new electronic care planning system.

The manager and deputy worked closely with staff to ensure there was no bias in everyday practice and to ensure they worked in accordance with the provider’s policies and procedures.

There was a diverse workforce at Allambie House. Staff said they were all treated equally and that they had not experienced any discrimination in the home.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability to help achieve good governance but these had not been fully embedded. The provider aimed to ensure they always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

Following our last inspection, the provider had engaged the services of an independent consultant to support them with improving their systems and processes. Where audits and checks had been completed, these had been effective and provided some oversight of the service. New processes had made a positive difference to the governance of the service. However, processes and systems needed more time to become embedded into day-to-day practice under the new management team to ensure the quality of the service and improvements were maintained.

We identified that timely action had not always been taken in response to risk. For example, there had been a delay in maintenance work being completed in 2 occupied rooms where damp had been identified placing people at potential risk of ill health. However, we saw action had commenced to address these areas during our inspection.

Systems to monitor people's health and wellbeing were subject to regular checks but there remained areas that continued to need improvement. This included records being clearly maintained including medicine records.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information partners and collaborated for improvement.

Whilst people had access to some activities in the home, we did not see evidence of people being supported to social events in the community, or outside agencies visiting the home to further support people’s social care needs.

A visiting social care professional told us the new manager had taken time to understand their role and how they supported people they represented in the home.

Managers had taken action to improve communication and partnership with relatives by sending them a monthly wellbeing report about their family member. The report included information about people’s health and engagement throughout the month to identify improving outcomes for people. A relative told us, “The care home keeps me informed of any issues with my relative and they send me a monthly report.”

The provider's processes to ensure continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the service were not fully effective as improvements were continuing to be embedded to sustain and improve quality standards.

Actions to address improvement and innovation were ongoing. For example, we saw limited arrangements in place to support best practice dementia care. This included a lack of adjustments to the environment and limited opportunities for people to be engaged in activities that supported their individual needs.

Staff completed regular training to support them in their role and in delivering safe care. They felt confident to raise any concerns with management staff and to learn from any mistakes. Staff had regular opportunities to share information with management staff if they felt something needed to be improved. This included supervision meetings that took place with staff. The consultant supporting the home told us, “Learning from incidents and audits is consistently shared through flash meetings, handovers (at the end of each shift), and newsletters.”

The provider and managers welcomed our feedback and took some immediate actions to address issues we identified during our inspection visit.