Firs Residential 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 this key question was rated requires improvement. At this assessment this key question has changed to 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 service 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. Some staff supervisions were overdue, in line with the providers policy at the time of our inspection. However, staff felt supported, they told us the registered manager operated an open door policy and they felt comfortable to discuss any concerns and suggestions with them. Staff told us they worked together as a team to provide high quality care for people. One staff member told us, “It is a brilliant place to work, staff have time for the residents.” The home had a calm, happy and welcoming atmosphere.

The service 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. People, relatives and staff told us the service was well led. One person said, “It is definitely well led, I can’t think of anything that could be done better.” And a relative said, “It is very well organised, the registered manager does a wonderful job.” Staff respected the provider and registered manager and spoke highly of them. One staff said, “I can approach the providers, nothing is too much for them.” And another staff said, “I feel very supported by the registered manager, and that extends to all staff. We have a consistent staff team.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There were clear systems and processes in place to enable staff to whistle blow on poor practice. Staff told us they felt comfortable to report concerns and they felt listened to. Staff meetings were arranged, there was little attendance at these, however staff told us they could approach the registered manager at any time. One staff member said, “The manager operates an open door policy. I can talk to them about anything.”

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff told us they were treated fairly and the manager maintained their confidentiality. Staff told us they did not suffer from any form of discrimination. All staff were supported with their professional development and told us the manager had supported them during difficult personal periods. One person said, “The staff all seem happy in their jobs.”

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. Governance systems were in place, which included audits of medicines, environmental safety and records. Some improvements were required to ensure IPC audits identified concerns we found during our inspection. Daily manager walk rounds could not be evidenced, this would assist in improving the IPC concerns identified. This would also improve checks of call bells, as we found some people did not have call bells within easy reach. The provider conducted regular quality assurance audits at the service, to ensure people were receiving safe, high quality care. Daily handovers were in place, these ensured communication between the staff team and were detailed about peoples changing needs and any new admissions. Continuity plans were in place and detailed what action should be taken in the event of an emergency.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. Staff worked with partners to provide good outcomes for people. We received positive feedback from partners about how the service collaborated with them and positive feedback about the care people received. One professional said, “We have a good working relationship with the service, they are very open and transparent. The registered manager has worked tirelessly to improve the service.” The service had a recent positive audit from the local authority. People were happy living at the service and relatives were happy with the support their loved ones received. One person said, “Its lovely living here, everybody’s friendly. I’ve enjoyed it and I’ve lived here quite a few years.”

The service 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 contribute to safe, effective practice and research. Systems in place ensured the service learned lessons from accidents and incidents. Refurbishments in the service were ongoing. Improvement plans were in place ongoing following quality audit visits from the local authority.