Nicholas House

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

Systems were in place to promote good practice and improvements within the service. However, there were some areas that needed to become more robust in order to further improve the service. For example, there were some shortfalls in relation to recruitment processes, staff not always following good infection control practices, and ensuring risks to people were assessed and mitigated. The management team had already already taken action to make improvements. The managers had a good knowledge of their roles and responsibilities, duty of candour and had reported matters appropriately to both the local authority and CQC. Staff spoke positively about working at Nicholas House. They told us they felt supported by the management team and they were given the opportunity to be involved in the running of the service. There was a positive culture at the home.

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.

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.

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.

At the time of our visit, the registered manager had recently left and the general manager was managing the service, supported by the deputy manager, who was applying to register for the post of registered manager. People and relatives spoke positively about the management team and found them approachable and professional. They felt they led a good team of care workers, who were well trained and caring, and met people’s needs. One person’s relatives were less positive and did not always feel listened to. The provider had put processes in place to meet with them and other professionals to find a way forward. We identified some issues in the oversight of some aspects of service relating to recruitment checks, risk management, infection control, and the supervision of staff. However, the general manager and deputy manager immediately made improvements and sent us an action plan following our feedback. At this assessment, we saw improvements had been made, and were continuing to be made to ensure systems and processes in place were effective. The provider had employed an auditor who worked with the team to put robust systems in place and to help ensure improvements were embedded.

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.