Church Farm at Rusticus

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

The home was not always well led. Quality management audits used had identified some of the issues we found on assessment, but limited action had been taken to rectify the issues. Staff raised concerns about the culture within the home. The registered manager was working to alter the culture to one of trust and safety by fostering open and honest communication with people and staff but acknowledged this would take time to embed.

This service scored 61 (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 told us that their shared direction was communicated to staff and discussed on a regular basis and that they welcomed feedback about this and suggestions on new ways of working. Some staff we spoke with supported this, however some staff felt this was not reflected in all members of the senior leadership team. A staff member said, “I have raised concerns before about the culture and never received a response.” Another staff member said, “The registered manager listens but when they are overruled nothing changes.” We raised these concerns with the provider who were proactive and took immediate steps to investigate and review concerns.

The provider had a strategy in place which centred on delivering person centred care, with kindness and compassion. We saw evidence of the provider reviewing the culture and direction of the home and making amendments where needed. For example, where staff had raised concerns were saw incident forms and investigations had been completed. The desire to change culture is there, but change has not been embedded. The provider acknowledged this was an ongoing area for development due to historical management changes but was confident positive progress was being made by offering staff continuity and by building trust.

People and staff told us the management team were visible and active within the home. Staff said improvements had been made and they were supported and praised the registered manager for their leadership style and their honesty and transparency. One staff member said, “I thought about leaving until our registered manager started last year. Things have changed, she values our opinion and is honest with us about what she can and can’t change. It means we are on the same page.”

The provider had management cover for the home consistently and received updates and quality management information throughout the week which ensured the management team received appropriate support. We saw evidence the registered manager regularly communicated with staff in the home in an open and professional way and acknowledged improvements and achievements within the service.

Staff told us they knew how to speak up when needed and some staff were able to describe experiences of doing this within the service. While staff felt they were able to raise concerns some felt they did not always receive acknowledgement or a response to matter they had raised. One staff member said, “I put a concern in writing but never received an outcome, I guess it could still be under review, but I never heard anymore about it.” Another staff member said, “It’s hard for the registered manager as there is only so much they can do, I’m grateful they listened but nothing changes, and the provider is not here all the time to see issues.”

The provider had policies in place to support staff and people to raise complaints and guidance on the help and support available to raise a whistleblowing concern. However, there was negative feedback from multiple staff who had previously raised concerns. The provider acknowledged the feedback we received from staff and responded immediately to review process and encourage open and honest dialogue at all levels.

Staff told us there had been improvements in workforce equality, diversity and inclusion, they said they were treated equally, and the culture of the home was improving. Staff told us management supported reasonable adjustments where possible to accommodate things like appointments and childcare. One person said, “The registered manager is really supportive and makes adjustments where possible for people, this has meant a more stable staff team and less agency staff which keeps people safer.”

The registered manager acknowledged that the culture of the home was still developing, and time was needed to ensure a safe and trusting environment for the staff due to several changes in management history. However, the management team had a clear plan to monitor and evaluate its progress which ensured staff feedback was sought at regular intervals. The registered manager was knowledgeable about people and staff and encouraged open and transparent communication. We saw evidence of this in staff supervisions, team meetings and updates provided throughout the home. This ensured people were aware of how to raise issues or share ideas in a safe and inclusive way.

Staff gave positive feedback about the recent renovations to the home and the management structure. Staff described the registered manager and the compliance manager as ‘caring’ and ‘approachable’. Staff stated they were clear on their roles and responsibilities. However, when we asked staff how they audit and assess their effectiveness of their roles all staff commented this was completed by management and they would not know how to do this in their absence.

The provider and management team had a range of audits and quality monitoring tools which they used to oversee the performance of the service. These included medicine processes, accidents, incidents, and infection control book. Currently management were responsible for completing all these actions however there was a plan in place to upskill staff to be able to support and complete these audit and quality checks which would eventually free up the management team to have oversight of running the home. While the audits in place had highlighted some of issues, we found on assessment limited actions had been undertaken to rectify these issues. For example, the management team were aware that care plans needed updating but had made limited progress with this. Once concerns were raised the provider took immediate steps to ensure all care plans had a full review in a person-centred way. People and relatives confirmed to us they had been included and had seen improvements since our on-site assessment.

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.