The Old Vicarage

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

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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. Audits and checks used by the provider had not been effective as they had not identified the shortfalls we identified on our inspection. There was no action plan or risk assessment in place to address the shortfalls we found in the premises, the health and safety risks or from the risks of infection. Not all faults with equipment or shortfalls in the premises had been reported in the maintenance book or to leaders to enable them to be improved. The provider’s recruitment policy had not been followed as staff recruitment records had not always recorded applicants’ full employment history. Oversight of staff deployment had not prompted action to ensure 2 domestic cleaners were deployed as identified as needed or how to improve the staff supervision of communal areas. Induction checks used on agency staff had not been effective at ensuring their skills and competencies to provide care in line with good practice guidelines. Checks on care plans and risk assessments had not always identified a lack of detail or incorrect details.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.