John Masefield House - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

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

Improvements had been made and the home was well led. There was a clear and effective management structure which aided the smooth running of the home. Staff were positive about management of the home and told us the provider and the new management team were supportive. Staff felt they were listened to and kept informed of improvement plans. The provider had improved oversight of the service and effective quality assurance systems in place that they used to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff worked well with external social and health care professionals. Healthcare professionals and other stakeholders were positive about the effective collaboration with the service which resulted in better outcomes for people. Improvements had been made and the provider’s systems allowed them to continuously learn and improve across the organisation. Action plans from governance processes were used to improve people’s outcomes both locally and further afield. Whilst improvements had been made with quality assurance systems, we could not be sure of their full effectiveness as this is achieved over a longer period of time.

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.

Staff told us improvements had been made and the provider's vision and strategy were transparent and inclusive which allowed meaningful engagement with people. People and staff input were sought and used to make improvements in care. The provider had made changes and improved the culture of the service. People, staff and relatives were seen as partners in care and this involvement resulted in better care and outcomes.

The provider’s policies and procedures had been reviewed and were supportive of people and staff involvement. Records showed there was more transparency regarding people’s needs and care provision.

The management team were new in their posts but ensured everyone was clear of their roles. They told us staff followed an established chain of command which allowed a streamlined communication pathway. The new registered manager had introduced regular staff, relatives and professionals’ meetings. Meeting minutes showed the management team were keen to include everyone in changes that were aimed at improving people’s care and experience. For example, meals, activities and how best people wanted to spend their time. There was a sense of ensuring people’s individual needs were met. Relatives were happy with the communication from staff and the registered manager. Staff told us the management team were capable, compassionate and inclusive. They said, “The management team that we have now are more reliable, and our manager is taking an action urgently if any concerns or issues we have in the home regarding work matters. The team is more productive and professional.”

The provider had ensured the management team were skilled, experienced and knowledgeable to effectively lead with integrity and honesty. There were development and training opportunities for the management team to keep abreast with up to date research and knowledge. There were processes in place which ensured provider oversight and quality assurance.

The provider told us the culture in the home had significantly changed. Staff told us they were supported to speak up and knew they would be listened to. Records showed staff attended meetings which included agenda items of updates on staffing and recruitment, feedback from people and relatives as well as current challenges the home was facing. Staff told us they knew how to whistle blow if needed but had not had the need to do so.

The provider’s policies and procedures encouraged people, staff and relatives to speak up through different channels and the feedback was used to improve care. People, staff and their relatives had opportunities to raise any comments via an open-door policy at any time. Communication was described as a two-way process which enabled better resolution of any issues raised. The provider had a whistleblowing policy which was available to staff.

The provider told us they valued diversity in their workforce and were working towards an inclusive and fair culture. They ensured fair and equitable treatment of staff. Training and development opportunities were available to everyone. Staff were positive of being a multicultural team who learnt a lot from each other. This had resulted in positive team working and better care. The provider had flexible working arrangements in place for staff.

Records showed diversity and inclusion was often discussed in meetings. This enabled the provider to find ways of creating an inclusive and balanced platform for all staff.

Staff told us there was now a clear management structure. The home was led by an approachable and supportive new registered manager who was supported by a visible area operations manager and a new deputy manager. The provider was supportive and had a clear oversight of the service. Staff told us they had embraced champion roles in all areas of care as this provided them with ownership opportunities for their work.

The provider had made improvements and introduced a significant amount of effective quality assurance systems which continuously identified areas of improvement. There was an improved emphasis on continuously improving the service and the provider had oversight of what was happening in the service. Audits included all aspects of care such as health and safety checks, safe management of medicines and people's care records. Where shortfalls had been identified, learning was applied across the whole service. Whilst improvements had been made with quality assurance systems, we could not be sure of their full effectiveness as this is achieved over a longer period of time.

People told us the home was transparent, and this was evidenced through their effective communication and reflective practices which aimed at improving care outcomes for people. People told us they now had ample opportunities to engage with the community due to better staffing levels. The use of independent advocates had ensured that everyone's needs would be met.

Staff told us the service was transparent and collaborative with relevant external stakeholders and agencies. It worked in partnership with key organisations such as healthcare professionals and the commissioners to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.

Healthcare professionals and other stakeholders were positive about the effective collaboration with the service which resulted in better outcomes for people.

Records showed the provider worked closely in partnership with the safeguarding team and multidisciplinary teams to support safe care provision. Advice was sought, and referrals were made in a timely manner which allowed continuity of care.

The provider told us they had learnt from the last inspection outcome and had focused on involving people, staff and families. Feedback was used to target the areas that had impacted general care and people’s outcomes. For example, lack of skilled staff and leadership of the service. Addressing this had created a better foundation for continuous improvement.

Improvements had been made and the provider’s systems allowed them to continuously learn and improve across the organisation. Action plans from governance processes were used to improve people’s outcomes both locally and further afield.