Hunters Creek Care Home

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 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 provider promoted a positive culture that was based on openness, inclusion and respect. Policies were in place to support a framework of positive and open cultures. There were some areas where this culture was not always applied consistently in practice. Not all staff demonstrated confidence when engaging with people, which at times affected how people experienced care. There were also occasions where privacy and dignity were not fully considered, which showed the culture was still developing in some areas.

Despite this, staff described a supportive and open environment. The registered manager was approachable and encouraged staff to raise concerns and share ideas. Staff felt able to speak openly about challenges and said they were supported in their roles.

The provider showed awareness of equality, diversity and inclusion. This included supporting people with different communication needs and cultural backgrounds. Staff adapted how they communicated with people and used different approaches to make sure people were included.

There was a positive atmosphere within the service. Staff were observed being friendly, welcoming and respectful towards people and each other. Relatives also spoke positively about staff attitudes. One relative said, "The staff are brilliant, I cannot fault any of them."

The provider showed an understanding of the challenges within the service and had started to take steps to address these. This included focusing on improving staff confidence and engagement and developing more meaningful ways to support people’s quality of life.

The provider had capable and inclusive leaders who understood the service and led with openness and honesty. Leaders recognised areas for improvement and were taking action to improve them.

The registered manager had a clear understanding of people’s needs and how to manage the service safely. They were knowledgeable about risks within the service and took appropriate action when concerns were identified.

The management team worked well together and showed a shared commitment to improving care. The deputy manager was supportive and motivated, with a clear focus on developing their knowledge and sharing learning with the team. This supported a positive approach to teamwork and ongoing improvement.

Leaders were visible and approachable. Staff said they felt supported and were able to raise concerns or seek guidance when needed. There was an open culture where discussion and reflection were encouraged.

Relatives also spoke positively about the leadership within the service. One relative said, "The [registered] manager is approachable, my [family member] is very happy here and the [staff] are all very kind and good." Another relative said, "I have found the management team to be contactable and approachable. If they do not know the answer to my query, they get back to me with an answer quite quickly."

Leaders demonstrated integrity and a willingness to learn. They responded to feedback and showed commitment to improving outcomes for people.

The provider promoted a culture where people, relatives and staff felt able to speak up and be heard. People and relatives felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to. There were various opportunities to share their views such as meetings, in person visits, and surveys.

Staff described an open culture. They said they could raise concerns with the registered manager and felt supported to do so. They participated in staff meetings and supervision where they could raise any suggestions concerns. The registered manager encouraged discussion and reflection within the team.

There were systems in place to record and respond to concerns. Learning from concerns was identified and shared. The provider showed a willingness to listen and respond to feedback. The registered manager was approachable and took action when issues were raised, which supported an open and honest culture.

The provider valued diversity within the staff team and promoted an inclusive culture. There were limited records to show how equality, diversity and inclusion were monitored across the workforce or how any trends were identified and addressed. This meant it was not always clear how the provider measured the impact of their approach.

Despite this, staff described a respectful working environment. They said they were treated fairly and felt included within the team. The registered manager promoted an open culture where staff could share their views and be supported in their roles.

The provider showed awareness of challenges that could affect staff wellbeing, including situations where staff experienced discriminatory behaviour. Action had been taken to support staff and provide guidance on how to manage these situations. This showed consideration for staff safety and wellbeing while maintaining care for people.

There was a culture of teamwork within the service. Staff supported each other in their roles and worked together to provide care. Leaders encouraged learning and development, which supported staff to grow in confidence. The provider demonstrated a commitment to treating staff fairly and creating an environment where people felt respected and able to contribute.

The provider had governance systems in place to monitor quality and support safe and effective care, with improvements in progress. Governance systems were not always used consistently by staff. Records showed that new audit tools to promote better capture of people’s experiences were not fully completed in a way that captured people’s experiences. For example, some entries recorded tasks had been completed but did not include what people said or how they felt. This meant opportunities to understand and improve people’s experiences were sometimes missed. The registered manager recognised this and identified a need for further staff training to support more meaningful recording.

Despite this, the provider had introduced updated governance systems after learning from other Tanglewood services which showed they promote learning at an organisational level. An action plan was in place to support the further development of this new approach.

There were regular audits and checks in place. These included daily clinical oversight, care plan audits, infection prevention and control checks, medicine audits and health and safety checks. The provider also completed regular fire drills and reviewed emergency procedures. Weekly monitoring looked at staffing levels, dependency needs and call bell use.

Systems were in place to respond to risks. This included tracking frequent call bell use and reviewing staffing levels to meet people’s needs. Equipment and safety checks were completed regularly.

The provider showed a willingness to improve and had responded to feedback by developing more person-centred approaches to monitoring quality. Leaders understood where further work was needed and had plans in place to support this.

The provider worked in partnership with other services to support people’s care and improve outcomes. Overall, professionals spoke positively about working with the service. They described leaders as approachable and open to feedback. A professional said, “I have always found the quality of care to be good; I have never had to raise any concerns about the standard of care delivered to the people I am working with.”

Staff worked with a range of external partners. This included health and social care professionals who supported people with their needs. Professionals told us the registered manager and staff sought advice when needed and were open to working collaboratively to improve care.

The provider shared information with partners to support continuity of care. Staff liaised with other services when people’s needs changed to help make sure support was consistent.

There was evidence the provider was willing to reflect and improve through partnership working. Leaders engaged with professionals and responded to feedback to support better outcomes for people.

The provider showed a commitment to learning, improvement and innovation. There were some actions that had not yet been fully completed but the registered manager had implemented a detail service improvement plan that had identified most areas for development we observed.

Despite this, there was evidence of ongoing improvement. The provider responded to feedback from external professionals and used this to develop the service. A professional said, “The home continue to make improvements to the service and take on board advice given. It is now noted that several improvements are being sustained. A couple of actions not yet complete.”

The provider encouraged new ways of working to improve people’s experiences. This included developing more person-centred governance systems and introducing meaningful activities based on people’s interests. The service had worked with a local care association to pilot the use of bladder scanners. This allowed people to have their bladder function checked at the service. It supported early identification of concerns and could help reduce hospital admissions. Registered nursing staff had received specialist training to support this work.

Leaders reflected on practice and identified areas for development. They were open to feedback and worked with others to improve outcomes for people. Outcomes from surveys and feedback was collated into a ‘you said, we did’ format to share how changes would be implemented.

There was a focus on learning across the service. Staff were supported through training and development, although further work was needed to make sure learning was consistently applied in practice.