South Cary 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 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 71 (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.

The manager told us that they strived to provide excellent and meaningful care to everyone at South Cary House. This was reflected by the feedback we gathered from people and their relatives. There was a deep commitment to staff wellbeing. All staff we spoke with would recommend South Cary House to work in. One staff member said, “Overall it’s a great place to work, you can tell that staff want to be here and enjoy their job.” Staff spoke highly of managers and felt supported.

The provider 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 manager and their deputies were visible and had oversight of the home. Both deputies had been at the service for several years. Although the manager was recently appointed into their role, they came from a health and social care background and were knowledgeable about the service.

The manager told us, "My door is always open." This was reflected by staff, with 1 member telling us, "It's very open door here. I can go to them [managers] anytime; they will always make time for you." This meant people and staff had access to approachable and experienced leaders who promoted an open culture.

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

There was a positive culture within the home, with staff and people reporting feeling safe to raise concerns. Staff were aware of various escalation routes such as whistleblowing. One staff member told us, “I feel listened to here.” This meant there was an open culture where staff felt supported to raise concerns, promoting people’s safety and wellbeing.

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 felt they were treated fairly. One staff member told us, “I think we are being treated equally” and “You always get a thank you.” Staff could request reasonable adjustments. One staff member told us they had adjustments to their work pattern. This meant there was an inclusive culture where staff could carry out their roles effectively.

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.

Systems in place did not identify some of the shortfalls we found during the assessment such as the exposed hot pipes. The manager had already identified gaps in some governance systems and began implementing improvements, for example the introduction of MCA audits, which had not yet been used. Although improvements had been made, they had not identified some issues that we found independently. This meant governance systems were not yet fully effective and will require time to become fully embedded.

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.

Managers collaborated with external professionals such as the GP, district nurses, opticians and chiropodists to ensure people’s needs were met. Professionals reported to have positive relationships with the staff. One professional said, “I always feel really welcomed. They [staff] accommodate the times I can visit to assess my patients.”

The provider 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 contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Prior to our assessment the manager began implementing new systems of oversight and addressed some shortfalls with staff. For example, some cleaning schedules were not being completed, and this has now improved. The manager listened to people and their feedback. At the time of our assessment they organised a spring fete, involving the local community as well as the Macmillan charity. It was reported that this fete was successful. The manager told us they were aiming to generate new links with the local community through more engagement. This aimed to create new opportunities for people.