Sandpiper 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

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 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. Leaders promoted a shared purpose for delivering care and there was evidence of a positive intent to provide person centred support. Not all staff were aware of the values that underpinned the service, which meant the shared culture was not fully embedded across the workforce. This risked limiting how consistently values such as equality, dignity and inclusion were understood and applied in day-to-day practice.

The registered manager promoted the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Senior Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty and were keen to implement improvements based on feedback from the inspector. A relative told us, “The leadership is 100%.” They were visible within the service and the registered manager also demonstrated compassion in their interactions with staff. However, staff told us not all senior leaders were approachable. Some staff said their feelings were not consistently acknowledged or supported following difficult shifts, which showed leadership was not always inclusive or responsive to the emotional impact of the work on staff and this had negatively impacted morale and the culture. The registered manager and provider reflected on this feedback and immediately implemented posters to offer time to talk and planned to introduce more initiatives to ensure staff felt confident to approach them in the future.

There was an intention to promote an open culture where staff could speak up, but this was not consistently felt by everyone. Systems were in place to support open discussion and staff were encouraged to raise concerns. However, staff told us, they did not always feel confident to speak up to some senior leaders or believed their concerns would be listened to, taken seriously and addressed. This indicated a risk that issues may not always be raised early. The registered manager and provider recognised this and acted quickly to reflect on feedback and introduced additional ways to support staff wellbeing, with the aim of encouraging staff to feel safer and more confident to speak up in the future.

Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion were not consistently supported in a way that ensured staff felt treated fairly and valued. While diversity was recognised and policies were in place to promote fair treatment, staff told us they experienced unfairness due to pay disparities, which had a significant negative impact on how valued and respected they felt by senior leaders. This inequity affected staff morale and wellbeing and reduced confidence that equality and fairness were being applied consistently across the workforce.

The service had established governance systems to monitor safety, quality and performance to support the delivery of care. Risks were identified and monitored through a wide range of audits and action plans and there was a clear approach to tracking actions and outcomes. These systems provided oversight and helped leaders identify areas for improvement. However, governance arrangements relied heavily on quantitative data and did not consistently include people’s experiences or qualitative feedback. This meant leaders did not always have a full understanding of the quality of care or the impact the service was having on people’s lives, which limited assurance that governance systems were driving improvement based on what mattered most to people.

The service worked in partnership with other organisations and was embedded in the local community to support people’s needs. One professional gave positive feedback about their engagement with the service, the registered manager and observations of care. They said, “People appeared happy, no concerns raised on my last visit. Staff seen to be engaging at all times during my last visit.” Staff and leaders collaborated openly with external professionals and shared information appropriately to support continuity and positive health outcomes. People benefited from links with local organisations and activities which enhanced their wellbeing and access to community opportunities, including collaboration with fitness and wellbeing providers. Professionals gave positive feedback about how the registered manager and staff worked with them, responded to changing needs and supported people to achieve positive outcomes through effective joint working.

The service showed a commitment to learning and improvement, with leaders encouraging training and development and supporting staff to gain relevant qualifications. The registered manager and staff team reflected on feedback, incidents and staff complaints and responded proactively, including holding open and honest discussions and acting quickly to address concerns. However, Learning was not applied in a consistent way. The provider’s systems for identifying areas for improvement did not always recognise people’s experiences or staff concerns that led to them feeling undervalued. This reduced assurance that improvement activity was impacting on people’s day to day experiences and outcomes or embedding sustained change across the service and organisation.