Tigh Grianan

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 79 (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.

The registered manager and operations manager told us that the team had a strong sense of purpose and a culture of supporting people to get out and do things, to be supported as individuals, and to increase their independence and autonomy. Staff told us the same. One staff member told us, “Our aim is to make sure people get the care they should get, person-centred, treated as individuals. They should have choice, fulfil their potential and have a meaningful life.” Relatives told us there was a positive culture at the home, where personalised care was given and people were happy.

A programme was run by the registered manager every year to build this shared culture at the home, as well as developing staff practice it also worked on the values that made for good support. This year the program was called ' Good Outcome'. Each month there was a shared outcome to develop a common direction. One month the home had put on a barbeque for World Autism Awareness Day and invited the neighbours and this developed a culture of real inclusion for people in their local community. Another month the home had, through the programme, initiated local community clean ups of the neighbourhood, and making links with the neighbours. There were pictures around the home of this voluntary work in the local community carried out by people and staff. Links had been developed with neighbours and people were putting out the bins for their elderly neighbours, meaning a culture of good neighbourliness had become common practice.

A member of staff told us, “I like the teamwork, we have our skills and support each other in whatever we do. I like that staff are always smiling. I ask other staff questions and we share new knowledge [with each other], so we can carry ourselves [the team] along together.

The service was meeting the best practice guidance of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. This meant the model of care maximised people’s choices and independence, and the care provided was person centred. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensured people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.

There was a chart on the wall with individual goals linked to the programme to develop people’s confidence and independence. We observed staff supporting people with these individual goals meaning there was a culture of continuous progress in people’s lives, The chart meant people were empowered to be fully involved by seeing the successes they made.

A staff member told us, “The team are very good at person centred care, treating people as individuals. If we see something is not working the manager responds immediately and changes the plans and communicates this to everyone. The communication is very good.

The service 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.

Staff were complimentary of the support from the registered manager. A member of staff told us, “The manager is fantastic, they have an open- door policy. If we have any problems, we don’t keep things to ourselves. This is for both the residents and the staff. She is up on the floor and knows what is going on, she doesn’t just sit in the office.”

Staff also talked positively about the support of senior support staff. A member of staff told us, “Seniors are very good, we work as a team. There are monthly meetings, supervisions, we are not scared to talk, [management] are very accommodating and welcoming.”

Relatives and professionals told us they thought the home was well managed. A professional told us, “I have always found the manager to be approachable, professional and supportive [of my work].”

There was a keyworker system in place where a staff member would meet with a particular person to develop their care plans and made sure the whole team knew if things had changed for them. There were opportunities for staff to progress and learn through the provider’s competency-based development programme.

The registered manager said that she was supported by the provider and her manager, who visited the home regularly.

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

People were supported safely to speak up through their behaviours. These had been responded to and changes made to people’s support. Relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns should they needed to. The complaints procedure and staff grievance procedure were communicated and visible. Complaints and compliments had been logged and acted upon.

Staff told us there were forums for them to speak up in, such as team meetings and supervisions, and they were confident to do so. A member of staff told us, “When in meetings, we have these monthly, we debrief. In the meetings, in the agenda, there is a time when we can say anything [that is on our mind] and make suggestions.” Another staff member told us, “I feel able to speak up, I don’t keep quiet.”

This meant there was a culture in which staff felt able to speak up.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff told us they felt accepted by their colleagues, and teamwork was strong within the service. We observed staff working as a team and a friendly, respectful and inclusive culture amongst staff. Staff told us they had reasonable adjustments in their work if needed. There were photographs in the home of events celebrating different cultures with staff in ethnic dress.

All staff had training in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the workplace.

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 acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance and oversight were robust. Oversight systems were multi-layered, this included checks carried out on behalf of the provider. Where checks had been done by the provider and external partners, such as the fire brigade, we observed that any actions had been completed within set timescales.

Lessons were learnt from accident and incidents, and these were communicated to the whole team. There was a robust contingency plan in place. This included actions to be taken in the event of an emergency such as a loss of access to the building.

Staff had clearly identified responsibilities and checks that they needed to carry out. We observed that necessary checks had been completed by staff and signed for.

There was a culture of candour and reporting to CQC, partners and statutory agencies was timely and comprehensive.

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

People were active participants in their community. The registered manager and staff consistently told us they worked effectively with external professionals. We received positive feedback from partners who worked alongside the service.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

Staff told us they delivered person-centred care and liked to work towards improving the standard of care for people. A member of staff told us, “Staff worked closely together and shared knowledge to learn.” Another told us, “If we see something is not working, the manager responds immediately and changes the plan, and communicates this to everyone. I ask other people questions and share new knowledge, encourage them to share so we can carry ourselves along.”

Regular staff meetings and supervisions took place and minutes showed where learning and improvements had been made.

Surveys had happened to received feedback and learning from staff, people and their relatives and the findings and resulting actions had been displayed around the home. This meant there was a commitment to improve the care that was provided