Long Meadow

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 service was well-led. The manager demonstrated a clear understanding of regulatory responsibilities and a commitment to learning and driving improvement. We received consistent positive feedback from people, relatives, staff and partners in the leadership of the service. There was a clear governance system in place which provided oversight of risk and quality.

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.

The manager understood how leadership shaped the culture of a service and was committed to developing and building trust with the staff team. The manager had monitored the services' inspection history and took on the role with a commitment to driving improvements at the service. All staff reported positive changes since our last inspection. Staff were motivated by providing person centred and compassionate care. Staff fed back they were proud to work for the organisation and enjoyed their jobs.

The provider’s visions and values were clearly communicated with people, visitors and staff. For example, through induction processes or a service user guide. There were opportunities for people to be involved in the service, such as resident and relative meetings.

The manager had been in post 9 weeks at the time of our assessment, but demonstrated a good understanding of the service priorities, regulatory responsibilities and key stakeholders to work with to drive improvements. They were in the process of registering with CQC. Staff fed back positively on the manager, describing them as visible, and firm but fair. All felt able to approach the manager and that they would be listened to. Staff had regular support in the way of supervisions, appraisals and regular team meetings.

There were policies in place which outlined accountability and clear guidance for staff and leaders. The manager received support from an operations team who also carried out routine audits and checks of the service.

Leaders explained an external company had been commissioned which provided a confidential line for staff to contact should they feel they needed to blow the whistle and not be able to raise this with management. Leaders explained this support was re-iterated to staff at team meetings. Staff understood how to report concerns about poor practice. Staff told us they had not needed to report any concerns but felt confident to do so if required and that they would be listened to.

The provider ensured policies and procedures were in place to support staff to speak up and raise concerns.

Staff spoken with shared they had not faced any discrimination whilst at work. They confirmed they felt supported personally and professionally.

Systems were in place to protect and celebrate a diverse workforce. Staff surveys were given out which allowed staff to feedback on any equality, diversity or inclusion concerns, which leaders assured would be dealt with as a priority. The provider had leads for supporting overseas workers and managers met weekly to discuss the well-being of staff. Plans were in place to support events such as Pride. Relevant policies were in place regarding equality, diversity and human rights.

The manager introduced checks on the service to oversee quality and risk. This included daily walk-arounds, huddles with staff in addition to a range of compliance audits. They demonstrated how they monitor a range of areas and meet key performance indicators (KPI’s) within the service using a live spreadsheet. The provider also completed checks to support the manager and service and external audits were also sourced. The provider explained they regularly followed up on actions. Staff were aware of senior management responsibilities when it came to governance and auditing. They confirmed they were made aware of any actions as required.

There were effective processes in place to oversee key risk and quality of the service. A range of quality audits were regularly completed, and actions plans were generated where areas for improvement were identified. The manager reviewed these routinely to monitor progress.

All relatives fed back their loved ones had involvement from relevant agencies and professionals and felt satisfied appropriate referrals were made in people’s best interests. Some of the professionals’ relatives had noted involvement with included chiropody, GP’s, pharmacy, mental health professionals, opticians, dentists and district nurses.

Leaders spoke of improvements in engagement with healthcare professionals due to improved communication and team working. Staff fed back they worked in partnership with a range of professionals and knew how to make appropriate referrals. Professional recommendations and advice was shared with staff through a communication book.

We received positive feedback from partner agencies regarding the new management at the service and their transparent, proactive approach. A visiting healthcare professional told us the service was receptive to support and staff were interested in learning new approaches to support people.

Systems were in place to ensure appropriate sharing of information, and collaborative working with partner agencies. For example, records of advice and recommendations were made and reflected in people’s care plans. Information was also shared with staff teams by way of daily safety huddles, and a communication book. In addition, the manager completed regular reviews of the communication people had with any visiting professionals. This assured they had suitable oversight of the input and any recommendations made.

The manager was aware of service priorities and explained they work on a live action plan which is under continuous review. Staff explained they were aware of the previous inspection findings and reflected on the changes since then. Staff fed back that they felt significant improvements had been made.

A comprehensive action plan was in place and under continuous review by leaders to ensure improvements were made. There were clear processes to ensure learning and improvement when things go wrong. For example, following our last inspection a clear and effective strategy to address the concerns was implemented and actioned. Feedback was actively encouraged from staff, people and visitors which was used to shape the service.