Link 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 good. At this inspection, 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 75 (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 managers described the values of the provider and explained how these were applied to ensure they employed suitable staff. Managers told us they routinely used individual and group meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles. They supported a reflective practice approach, establishing a learning culture to support staff to deliver good quality person-centred care. Care staff told us they were supported by their line managers and nursing staff to deliver consistently safe, person-centred care to people in line with the provider’s vision and values for the service. Typical feedback from staff included, “This is a lovely place to work. Everyone is friendly,” “We have a good team spirit here and we all work well together” and “We have a common goal of doing the best we can for everyone who lives here and to keep them safe.”

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.

The care home was well-managed by a competent management team with the right mix and levels of knowledge, skills and experience, which comprised of a registered service manager, deputy manager and clinical lead nurse. People living in the care home, their relatives and staff working there were all positive about the leadership approach of the services managers who they described as approachable and friendly. Staff were equally positive about the leadership approach of the management team who they said were supportive and professional. Typical feedback included, “The managers are all very approachable and easy to get along with here,” “The managers are supportive and good listeners” and “I feel the manager [registered] is accessible and friendly. She is quite easy to talk with.”

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

The care home had an open and transparent culture where people, relatives, external care professionals, and staff were all encouraged to raise concerns without fear.

The provider used a range of methods to gather people’s views about what the care home did well or might do better. The provider received regular feedback through various forums where people were encouraged to attend. Managers told us they explained the complaints process before people moved into the home.

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during regular individual and group meetings with their line managers and fellow co-workers. The provider had a ‘Speak up’ policy that was available to all staff. Staff felt able to brings things to the attention of the managers.

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

Staff told us they were part of a diverse team, treated equally and fairly, and they felt able to speak up when they needed to. Staff told us their managers were supportive and reported feeling respected, valued and listened to by them. A member of staff told us, “We are a very diverse staff team working here, and the managers always treat us fairly and respect our different cultures and faiths.”

Managers understood the importance of having a fair and inclusive workplace for all staff to work in. Staff were provided support through relevant training and supervision to inform their knowledge and understanding of equality, inclusivity and fairness 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 act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had established governance systems which were routinely used to check the quality and safety of the care and support the service provided people. The outcomes of these checks were regularly used to identify performance shortfalls which feed into action plans to continuously improve the quality and safety of service users. Managers and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their governance roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing, monitoring, and managing the quality and safety of the service they provided.

The quality of information recorded and maintained in people’s care records, and records relating to the management of the service was sufficiently detailed, up to date and accurate.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents. Our records indicated they continued to notify the CQC in a timely manner about any incidents and events they were legally required to. They also understood their responsibility to apply duty of candour and where appropriate apologised when things went wrong.

We saw the service's previous CQC inspection report, which was conspicuously displayed in the care home easy to access on the provider's website. The display of the ratings is a legal requirement, to inform people, those seeking information about the service and visitors of our judgments.

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

The provider shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Managers and staff told us they worked closely with various external health and social care professionals and bodies who they regularly consulted and welcomed their views and advice. This was confirmed by external health and social care professionals we contacted. One said, “The service is really good at following up any queries I might raise, they always listen to any professional advice I give them and will take up training we offer them to improve staffs working practices.”

The service 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 contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Managers understood the importance of having an open culture of learning and continuous improvement to ensure people consistently received high quality, safe care, and support. An external care professional told us, “The service is good at learning lessons when things go wrong and want to continuously improve and makes things better for the people who live here.” Managers told us all the audits and checks the provider conducted were routinely analysed to identify performance shortfalls and learn lessons, so the service could continuously improve. When lessons needed to be learned, the provider developed action plans which set out clearly what, how and when they needed to take steps to improve the service they provided people. Staff confirmed information about any lessons learnt and action plans developed as a result were always shared with them during individual and group supervision meetings with their line managers.