Heritage Care Place

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 this assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Management had regular meetings with staff to discuss the expectations of the organisation and any concerns they had. Staff undertook a range of training and had used this to help ensure procedures were followed and there was good quality care. There was regular communication between staff so that they could share their experiences and learn from one another.

Open communication was promoted between management and care staff. Meetings between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss people’s individual support needs and the running of the service.

Management was clear about the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service. They were complimentary about management and said they were well supported.

Staff told us they knew how to speak up if they had concerns or something went wrong. They felt the registered manager and the organisation supported them and listened to them.

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff.

Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up. Systems were in place for staff to raise anonymous concerns.

Staff spoke positively about working at the agency and said that their diversity needs were met. Staff were supported with flexible working conditions, felt discrimination would be challenged and had opportunities to celebrate their diversity.

Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. These were implemented through recruitment practices, training, and support for staff.

The provider did not have clear systems of accountability and good governance. Audits we looked at contained limited information and there was no clear record of lessons learnt. We found that audits did not always identify issues with regards to some aspects of the service. For example, audits did not identify the issues we raised in respect of risk assessments, lack of MARs for 1 person and lack of detail in daily notes. We raised this with management who responded positively to our feedback and told us they would review and amend their audits to ensure they were effective at identifying shortfalls.

Systems were in place to help encourage good working relationships with health care professionals. These relationships helped to support people to receive joined up care.

The registered manager told us they were committed to continuously improving the service. However, the provider had failed to effectively monitor all aspects of the performance of the service. Records indicated that the service did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement.