Kitnocks 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 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 71 (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, 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. People and their relatives were consulted about their care and care plans and their input was sought. The registered manager told us how they supported people to attend online local church services when they were unable to get out.

Processes were in place to promote equality and diversity for people and the staff team. We reviewed the provider’s statement of purpose which clearly set out their values. Staff were all able to talk confidently about the provider’s visions and values.

The provider 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.

Relatives and staff consistently told us about the positive and caring attitudes of the management team. We observed the registered manager to be supportive to both people and staff. The registered manager talked passionately about ensuring people living in the home were living their best lives and gave examples of how they did this.

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

People living in the service were asked for their views at regular meetings and the registered manager had an open-door policy. We saw evidence of the registered manager acting on feedback from people following 1 of these meetings. Most staff told us they were confident the registered manager would act if they raised any concerns with them.

Relatives told us they could easily speak to the nurses or registered manager and in the past the management team had responded appropriately when things had been brought to their attention and had worked to resolve it.

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 supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. The provider held regular staff meetings and had recognition awards to engage with and celebrate the staff.

The provider had clear responsibilities and roles but did not always have good systems of accountability or good governance. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff and the management team understood the importance of reporting any changes to people’s wellbeing. Quality audits took place but had not always identified where improvements were needed. Such as the shortfalls in people’s care records and staff recruitment records. However, the registered manager was very responsive when these concerns were brought to their attention and during the inspection put plans in place to strengthen their auditing and monitoring processes.

There were security measures in place to ensure all paper and electronic information was stored safely and securely.

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.

Staff worked in close co-operation with partners from a range of agencies, to share information, identify and meet people's care needs. Staff made referrals promptly where required and acted upon guidance.

Staff also involved people in their local community. A local Brownie group and local schools visited and interacted with people. Staff involved people with themed activities aimed at promoting social interaction, participation, and access to cultural differences.

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. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Leaders spoke passionately about the need for continuous learning to drive improvements for the service. They described a strong desire for continuous improvement and shared their plans to continue improving the service. They responded promptly to any concerns highlighted during the inspection.

Some relatives told us they had not met the registered manager but knew how to contact them if they needed to. Other relatives told us the registered manager was available and approachable. Most staff members told us, the registered manager was doing well and was visible, approachable, and making improvements.