Plean Dene

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 changed to 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The leadership team had not fully embedded a culture that consistently recognised communal living spaces as people's home. Although staff were caring in their approach, some practices observed during the inspection did not always promote choice and ownership of the environment. For example, when people had completed household chores, staff viewed this as the person helping the staff and not looking after their own home. Staff were observed changing television channels or programmes without first consulting people.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty. Leaders had not always ensured effective oversight of the service, as governance systems had failed to identify a number of concerns found during the inspection. Leaders had also not fully embedded a culture that consistently promoted the service as people's home. However, staff described leaders as approachable, supportive and receptive to feedback.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to and acted upon by management.

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, valued and able to approach managers with any concerns. They said they were listened to and encouraged to share ideas and suggestions to improve the service.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. Governance systems were in place; however, they had not been fully effective in identifying and addressing the concerns found during the inspection. Provider oversight had not identified issues relating to person led care, staff knowledge and skill, management of risks and aspects of service culture.

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. We found evidence of multidisciplinary team involvement in supporting people's care and wellbeing, demonstrating partnership working with relevant professionals.

The provider strived to focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

However, we found some concerns during the inspection which we have highlighted throughout our report. Although the provider was motivated to learn and improve the service for people, their overall ambition was limited by the lack of effective risk and quality monitoring systems. This meant they might not always be aware of shortfalls to enable prompt improvement and learning.

The provider was responsive during our inspection and told us what action they would be taking and how they were taking learning from this inspection and would be sharing this across their organisation.