Stubblefields 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

The service had a code of conduct which all staff received during induction. Staff spoke about the person-centred values at the service. Staff described a culture of family and a wholly supportive environment for both people and staff. Staff had continuous access to policies, and these were regularly discussed during staff meetings. The registered manager described their focus on compassionate care and their commitment to ensuring the service provided a true home for people. The registered manager planned to make closed cultures a regular discussion at resident and staff meetings.

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.

Managers were open and transparent with people, relatives and staff. Managers regularly worked alongside staff both to support them and model inclusive behaviours. A staff member told us, “The best thing is working as a team. We all work very well here.” Another commented, “The managers are very supportive.” Managers were alert to any changes in people’s presentations and also to those in staff, which may have a detrimental impact to care delivery.

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

The service promoted freedom to speak up and staff were confident about describing how they were able to speak up and that actions would be taken. The registered manager described the different ways in which staff were able to speak up and staff confirmed they understood these. One staff member said, “We have our own voice and opinion and it does get heard.”

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.

The composition of the staff team represented both the people they supported and the local community. Staff were supported with flexible working arrangements and reasonable adjustments, where necessary. One staff member said, “All staff have respect for each other. Everyone gets treated the same.”

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. They did share information securely with others when appropriate.

Managers had defined their roles and responsibilities. However, it was not always clear who had responsibility for oversight across the service, nor how this had been thoroughly embedded to ensure it was effective. Whilst it was identified improvements had been made there was not enough identified sustained improvement at the time of our inspection visit. For example, the auditing system had not identified the discrepancies we found in support plans and documentation. Information about themes and trends was not used fully to support continuous improvement. Risks had not always been identified fully or recorded accurately.

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. However, improvement had not yet been fully embedded or sustained.

Not enough sustained improvement had been made to ensure the provider had a clear focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Managers had started to encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. However, they did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.