Corner Oaks

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.

This is the first assessment for this service since they registered. This key question has been rated 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance and oversight of the service.

This service scored 54 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

We identified shortfalls in the provider’s reporting of incidents within the service, to external stakeholders including CQC. This did not demonstrate openness and transparency of culture within the service. The blanket approach in relation to use of closed circuit television within communal areas of the service, did not demonstrate recognition of the provider’s responsibilities to uphold people’s equality, diversity and human rights. Key documents relating to the structure and running of the service contained details relating to the provider’s other service, and were not reflective of requirements of Corner Oaks; this did not ensure staff had access to important guidance and information in the event of an emergency happening at the service.

Not all leaders embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Some leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service did not have sufficient oversight from the registered manager or provider. Whilst regularly present at the service, the service relied heavily on the experience and capabilities of the deputy manager. However, they did not hold overall legal responsibility for the safe running of the service in line with regulations. Inspection findings identified gaps in the knowledge and experience of the registered manager and provider to ensure the service operated with transparency and integrity. The only negative feedback received from people’s relatives was in relation to poor communication and responses to emails by leaders, but praise was shared with us in relation to the open lines of communication and support provided by the deputy manager.

Staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

We received feedback from staff and people’s relatives that identified they found the registered manager to not be responsive to concerns and issues when brought to their attention. Instead, staff and relatives felt able to speak with the deputy manager, and felt confident concerns would be acted on. We received staff feedback that improvements to whistleblowing policies and procedures and how these were followed by the provider were required to ensure staff felt confident to speak up.

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.

Staff told us they felt they worked as part of an inclusive and effective team. Staff told us they drew on their previous employment skills and experiences to assist them in their current roles. The staff team consisted of some staff new to the caring role, some who had worked as qualified nurses and other professionals, and those with many years of experience working in the social care sector. Overall, staff felt their wealth of knowledge and experience resulted in positive outcomes for people and resulted in cohesive team working.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a lack of effective governance systems and processes in place within the service, and at provider level within the organisation. Quality audits and checks were of poor quality and lacked meaningful information. Where audits, including those delegated to members of staff, identified risks and concerns they demonstrated a lack of evidence to confirm these were acted on and addressed. The provider was not ensuring the registered manager who also held the role of nominated individual was meeting the basic requirements of their role and regulatory responsibilities.

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.

We identified positive examples of collaborative working between people, their relatives and or external health and social care professionals to achieve equity in access to services. Staff ensured guidance and advice from external professionals was implemented into their own practice and approaches to achieve positive care outcomes.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

From reviewing governance documents and information relating to the running of the service, we identified issues found during this inspection which had been brought to the provider’s attention previously as an outcome of the local authorities’ assessment process. This did not demonstrate a culture of learning and improvement at a provider level within the service and wider organisation.