The Ark Care Lodge Limited

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 our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Staff created a culture where people were at the centre of their care and support. A staff member told us, “Staff spend quality time with people and people are enjoying life because of this. This is a family unit, not just a care home.”

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. However, leaders were working to develop their skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively at the time of our assessment. The registered manager had identified a need to strengthen the management team and had recently recruited a deputy manager to support with governance and oversight. The registered manager supported staff and they told us this had a positive effective on their well being and made them want to stay. A staff member told us, “Managers allocate work on a daily basis so we are clear on what we need to do; they are very involved. They recognise and respect staff and people as individuals and this makes everyone feel valued.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Relatives described good communication from the service which enabled them to express any concerns or make suggestions and these were listened and responded to. Staff told us they were encouraged to share their views, and these were listened to and acted on by the registered manager. There was regular engagement with people and external agencies to ensure people were at the centre of their care.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff described good teamwork and a respectful culture where diversity and equality were encouraged and supported. A staff member described the staff team as being respectful of each other as individuals. For example, they described how they were supported to follow key events and celebrations relating to their culture which enabled them to achieve a better work/life balance.

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The registered manager had developed quality assurance but these did not always identify where actions were required and areas for improvement. For example, audits had not identified all the environmental concerns we found. The provider had acted on requirements and advice following audits and checks from external agencies. They were developing quality assurance systems that would enable a more proactive approach to identifying, making and sustaining improvements more effectively. The model of care was not in line with current best practice guidance right support, right care, right culture, this was because the service was open before the guidance was released. Leaders were aware of this and the risks associated with out of date models of care and had put measures in place to ensure people received high quality person centred care.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement, although relatives did not always feel they received an outcome when they shared their views about the service. People’s care records showed staff worked in partnership with a range of external agencies and incorporated guidance into the care they provided. This helped people to maintain their well being and be a part of their community.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. However, due to the scale of improvements needed, the registered manager had prioritised these and was still working through actions at the time of our assessment. These included environmental improvements and upgrades and continual development of care and support. People, relatives and staff confirmed the registered manager had made significant improvements since their appointment. Comments included, “I go out and do things I like a lot more now,” and “[Registered manager] is very efficient and a good communicator” and “I feel well supported in my role and managers provide clear guidance and information on what we need to do to give people a good quality of life.” The views of staff and people actively sought both formally and informally and we saw these were acted on, though relatives did not feel this was always shared with them.