London Care (Bristol Court)

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.

The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At the last assessment, we identified breaches of legal regulations relating to good governance. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The provider was no longer breaching this regulation.

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.

At our last assessment, we found that people using the service and staff were not always happy with the service and reported a poor culture. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. Comments from people included, “There has been a marked improvement during the last year or so” and “I really enjoy living here now.”

The provider had taken steps to empower people and give them opportunities to share their views and lead on aspects of the service. For example, supporting people to run their own groups and activity sessions.

Staff told us they felt better supported and valued. Managers spoke positively about staff and praised the individual contributions they made.

The provider employed capable and inclusive leaders. The registered manager had previously worked in a senior role at the service. They knew people and staff well. They had introduced positive changes at the service and people told us this had improved the quality of their care. The registered manager was supported by a team of senior staff who led on different aspects of the service. Staff and people using the service told us they respected and liked all the managers. Their comments included, “[Managers] take care of everything”, “They are approachable and genuinely caring people” and “[Managers] know us really well and look after us.”

The registered manager and other senior staff were supported to undertake different qualifications and be part of external leadership programmes.

There were procedures to enable staff to speak up. Staff told us they felt able to do this and confident they would be listened to. Their comments included, “The [registered] manager has an open-door policy” and “It is easy to approach managers in case we need to talk.” Staff understood how to raise concerns with senior managers and externally if they needed.

The provider supported staff equality and diversity. Staff told us their individual needs were respected and met. Staff told us they were supported with flexible working if they needed this. Staff were given opportunities to make choices about the type of contracts they had. Managers carried out risk assessments and liaised with human resources staff to ensure staff individual needs were met when they had a particular need. For example, pregnant staff, those returning from maternity leave and staff with health conditions.

At our last assessment, we found that governance systems were not always operated effectively. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The provider had suitable systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service. These included a range of audits, analysing feedback and reviewing adverse events. Senior managers had oversight of different aspects of the service. When problems were identified, managers created plans to make improvements. These were monitored and improvements had been made.

At our last assessment, some external professionals told us there were problems with partnership working. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Staff worked closely with external partners. The extra care scheme was jointly managed by London Care and the local authority. They worked with each other to ensure people received good quality care. There were regular information sharing meetings. Representatives from the local authority praised the work of managers in making improvements at the service and in partnership working. Their comments included, “Since [registered manager] has been in post the scheme has significantly improved. The atmosphere is positive and welcoming.”

Another external professional who worked closely with the service told us, “I cannot even compare how things are now to how they were before. We work in collaboration and like partners. We talk and share ideas, and I know I can trust them.”

At our last assessments, we found the provider did not always learn and make improvements when needed. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Senior managers worked closely with the registered manager to monitor the service. They had introduced plans to make improvements and retrain staff when they identified this was needed. They had plans to develop the service further. For example, improving digital records and activity provision.

Managers carried out regular spot checks on staff and asked stakeholders for feedback. They carried out case studies to review individual care each month. They shared these with each other and managers from other services so they could learn from these and develop best practice.

The provider had taken part in a government commissioned research project to look at how loneliness impacted on under-represented communities.