Stradbroke Court

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

We inspected 3 quality statement for this key question, Freedom to speak up, Governance, management and sustainability and Partnerships and communities. The provider had worked to improve the culture in the service. It was clear that staff now enjoyed working at the home and people were contented living there. Effective governance and management systems were not in place. We saw these were being implemented but still need further development. Staff were positive about the new manager and staff worked together to continue to ensure people were supported to meet their goals.

This service scored 39 (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.

Staff were positive about working at Stradbroke Court and felt the current management team would listen to them. A member of care staff told us, “I feel the management we have now are doing positive things to bring Stradbroke court back to the happy place it was. They are approachable and ready to listen to any concerns you may have and seem to deal with them appropriately.” Another said, “The management team take my concerns seriously and follows proper protocols to ensure resolution and support.” Morale in the service was improving and feedback about the new manager and direction they were taking the service was encouraging.

Since our last inspection the provider had worked to address the culture in the service which had previously impacted staff’s ability to work in a supportive environment. New management was in place and there were systems, policies, and procedures to support staff in speaking up and raising concerns. Staff also received training covering safeguarding and whistle blowing and had opportunities to raise concerns through staff meetings or individual supervision sessions.

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.

On the day of our inspection visit we met the new manager who had been appointed 1 September 2024. They had not been in their role long having had some annual leave during that period. They have told us that they plan to register with the Care Quality Commission. The provider’s nominated individual and the management team provided reassurances as to how the governance of the service was being improved. For example, care plans were being transferred to an electronic system to improve effectiveness. We were told that they would be more person centred and easier to audit. A compliance manager had also been employed by the provider to support the manager with oversight of the service.

The provider did not have robust and effective governance systems to proactively and continually assess the quality and safety of the service, drive improvement or find where lapses had occurred. For example, inconsistencies in people’s care plans and language which did not value people had not been identified in care plans. Also, during the visit we observed a lack of direction and delegation for care staff. This had resulted in a delay to people receiving their medicines and inconsistencies in staff practice. The fire alarm incident highlighted gaps in staff understanding and within existing processes and systems for ensuring people were kept safe. This put people at risk of harm and had not been independently identified through the governance audits and checks. Following our inspection visit the manager and provider acted by sourcing further training and carrying out fire drills to mitigate risk. The system for monitoring safeguarding concerns and complaints did not facilitate effective monitoring. We brought this to the attention of the manager on the day of our inspection visit and they took action to address our concern. The management team were aware of issues in the service and an action plan with timescales and dedicated members of staff to drive improvement at the service had been developed. However, these need to include the issues and inconsistencies we identified, with further consideration given for the time it will take for new systems and improvements to be fully implemented and culturally embedded throughout the service.

People and relatives advised they were supported to access visiting healthcare professionals and to attend hospital appointments where required. One relative told us, "My [family member] has swallowing problems but they [staff] managed this well and the GP calls in every week and they [staff] make notes of things to report and follow things up. They [staff] keep a record of what he's eating and drinking."

Staff told us they had positive relationships with visiting healthcare professionals including the GP, district nurses and pharmacist.

We received positive feedback from partner agencies regarding how the service worked with them to provide care and support.

There were processes in place to refer people to external professionals such as the local GP.

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.