Ogilvy Court

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

We assessed 7 quality statements from this key question. The provider had good systems in place to monitor and check the quality of care. People and relatives told us they were involved in the service. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team. The culture in the service was open and transparent. Staff were encouraged to speak up and make suggestions on improvements. The leadership team had good oversight of the service.

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.

Staff told us they had good support from the leadership team and there was a clear structure and vision. One staff member said “We have a shared vision, strategy and culture. This is based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and our communities so we can meet these needs.”

The provider had an effective process in place to ensure staff understood the purpose of the service. Staff were recruited based on their values which aligned with the organisation values. People could be confident that staff were working together with one common goal to support people with good quality care.

Staff feedback was very positive about the leadership team. One staff member said, “They [senior managers] listened to me, and they address things. I feel listened too and they are very good and work on my concerns. The manager comes in at any time and knows every staff by name and you feel involved.”

The leadership team were available to staff. Staff were supported to progress within the organisation. Staff were provided with regular meetings and the managers had an open-door policy. This meant staff could seek advice and guidance when needed.

Staff told us they had no concerns about speaking up and were able to make suggestions on how to deliver the service. Staff were able to explain clearly the whistleblowing procedures in the service.

The provider had a procedure in place to ensure concerns were addressed and staff could speak up without fear of repercussions. There was a whistleblowing policy in place. This meant staff could seek advice and guidance when needed.

Staff told us they felt involved in the service and valued.

The provider recruited staff from different backgrounds. Staff were treated well and valued for their input. The provider had a diversity and inclusion strategy. This meant staff could be confident that they would have equal opportunities offered to them by the provider.

Staff informed us that they did regular monitoring of the quality of care.

The provider had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of care. Audits of the quality of care were completed regularly and actions were put in place to make improvements. Analysis of accidents/incidents and complaints were robust and measures to prevent re-occurrence were put in place. The leadership team had good oversight of the service.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the activities offered in the home.

There is an activities coordinator who is full time at the home. Staff told us that activities are arranged both in the home and outside of the home. For example, 1 person meets a relative in a local coffee shop and another person goes into London monthly.

Feedback from partners was very positive about the home and service being provided to people.

The provider had an effective system in place to ensure people did meaningful activities. Hobbies, interests and preferences were outline in people’s care plans. This meant people could make choices about what activities they would like to do based on their wishes and preferences.

Staff told us they were always looking for way to make improvements in the service. There was an emphasis on learning from mistakes and addressing these as soon as possible.

There was a clear effective process in place to learning from incidents that occurred in the service. The provider analysed the quality of care and put measures in place to improve the service quality. Service improvement plans were in place and communicated to staff, people and relatives. People could be confident that continuous improvements would be made and reviewed on a regular basis.