South Quay 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

This key question was previously rated good. This key question remains 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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff felt they could raise issues with their line manager or the registered manager. The registered manager had acted when concerns were raised to them. The culture was one in which high standards were expected by the registered manager, who took decisive action when required. Staff were supported to increase their confidence and competence. They were passionate about the care they provided.

The registered manager was responsive to our feedback, and that of other stakeholders.

Policies, procedures and systems in place supported people and staff to speak up if they needed.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The registered manager and leadership team shared governance responsibilities effectively, from daily walkarounds to monthly analysis of records. The deputy and other senior staff supported the registered manager and worked well together.

The provider planned to roll out electronic care records system in the coming months and assured us this would be supported with the appropriate amount of training, governance and good practice sharing.

Care planning was generally good and person-centred, with some strong examples regarding people’s preferences, individualities and religion. There were some minor gaps, such as dates. The provider was responsive to this feedback and confirmed they would review these, and review auditing processes as they moved from paper-based records to electronic. One external professional said, “The paper records can take some navigating, but the information is there, and the knowledge of staff is good.”

All external healthcare professionals and partners had confidence in the registered manager. One told us, “The registered manager knows their residents, staff and relatives and I have a lot of confidence in their ability and appreciate their support.”

The service had positive relationships with a range of local groups and with their relevant commissioning and social work teams. External professionals provided consistently positive feedback. One said, “Communication is usually at a high standard and thorough, I am very confident that the leadership team are organised and knowledgeable.”

The provider shared necessary information promptly when it was needed. They built and maintained positive links with local services and others that had a positive impact on people’s experience. For instance, organising a community fair, links with schools, charities, a local farm and a range of activities.

The registered manager recognised the importance of people remaining part of their local community, and also the possibilities of developing the community within the service.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.