Northlands House Care Home

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 succession planning for the service, ensured continuity and stability of management for people. The manager was both supported in their role and supportive of their staff team. They ensured they were accessible to people and staff. There was a clear organisational structure and staff all understood their roles and responsibilities. Systems were in place to ensure the manager had oversight of data which indicated how the service was performing in relation to the provider’s objectives. There were processes in place to ensure actions generated from different sources were collated and overseen via the service improvement plan. This enabled the manager to track the progress for each required action.

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.

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.

Leaders told us how the deputy manager had been supported through their appointment to the home manager role, which had provided people with stability and consistency of leadership. The home manager told us how they had been working to support and build their staff team. They said their leadership was focused on being visible and approachable to both people and staff. They and the other leaders we spoke with were knowledgeable about the issues and priorities for the service. The manager told us they were in the process of submitting their application to CQC, in order to become the registered manager for the service. Staff spoken with all provided positive feedback about the home manager. They said she was “Firm but fair,” staff felt they could speak freely to both the manager and home deputies.

The home manager was supported in their role by their clinical and non-clinical deputies and heads of departments. There was clear oversight of the service by the provider’s senior leadership team who were both accessible and supportive to the home manager, people and the staff team. There was an open-door policy and staff could contact the regional director directly as required. There were clear lines of accountability and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Processes were in place to ensure cover was in place when managers were absent. On the day of the site visits the home manager was on leave. However, a peripatetic manager was in charge, who was both familiar with the home and who had received a good handover from the home manager. They demonstrated a sound knowledge of both the provider’s processes and policies and the home.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

Senior leaders told us they had oversight of all incidents in the home and those rated as severe were then sent to the provider’s relevant governance teams for review and action. They told us how data about risks to people was constantly fed through to the home manager to enable them and senior leaders to have oversight and determine what action was required for people. People and their relatives could access their digital records to review and assure themselves of what care had been provided. Staff told us, “Relatives can sign up to the portal and can check food, fluids, handover notes.”

The provider used a digital platform to manage risk and quality within the service. This ensured audit schedules were in place to enable the home manager to understand what was required to be audited and when. The provider also used a system of quantifiable measures to assess the performance and effectiveness of the service, both monthly and over time. This enabled them to identify how well staff were meeting their objectives and to analyse any emerging themes and take any required action for people in order to make the required improvements. The required actions identified from audits, incidents, investigations, complaints, trends analysis, surveys and feedback were then collated onto the digital platform to provide an overarching quality improvement plan for the service. We saw the areas for improvement we identified were already on the plan and being progressed. The manager then tracked progress against each identified action until it was signed off. In addition to the internal audits and reviews, there was regular external oversight and visits from the provider’s quality team and the regional director.

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.