Laural 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 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. Although we found a couple of examples where we found people had not always been referred to in documents in a dignified way, our interactions and observations were positive and indicated people were referred to appropriately. Staff spoke positively about working at the service and the people who live there. Staff told us the visions and values of the service were to help the people have a better life and to live the best life they possibly can. One staff member told us, “We are here to give the people the best life possible, the healthiest life, be here for their wants, needs and goals.”

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. The registered manager had the skills and experience to effectively lead the home. The provider was very visible at the service. Staff felt supported and were positive about the management. Relatives were also positive about the management and told us they were confident should they need to raise any concerns action would be taken.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us there was regular engagement with people and their relatives, with a focus on supporting people to thrive, have new experiences and live the life they choose. The service had a whistle blowing policy in place, and staff spoken to felt able to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken. One staff member told us, “I can be honest with management here. I feel listened too and don't worry there will be repercussions for anything I say.”

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff spoken with felt they were treated fairly and equally, felt valued and respected and all thought it was a good place to work. One staff member told us, “They take on board what I have to say. I know I am a valued staff member.”

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. Since the last inspection improvements had been made to how quality was monitored. However, the system was not fully effective as it did not identify the concerns we found during the inspection in relation to the MCA and the minimisation of a risk we identified. We found no evidence that people had been harmed and the provider immediately actioned the concerns.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. One professional told us at a person’s recent review, “It was agreed to reduce a person’s care hours. The registered manager was flexible and accommodating and understanding of this request”. This had a positive impact for the person.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. The model of care was in line with current best practice guidance right support, right care, right culture. Leaders worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy a full life. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.