Claydon 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

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 assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager had been in post since November 2024. They had a clear vision about where improvements were needed and was very responsive to our suggestions and requests throughout the whole assessment process. The registered manager had begun the process of involving all staff in their vision for the future by organising regular team meetings and enabling staff to feedback individually through supervision meetings. A new quality service manager had just been appointed which provided greater resilience to the management of the service, providing more time for the registered manager to concentrate on driving improvements. Business improvement plans and contingency plans were in the process of being reviewed.

Staff told us that the new registered manager was approachable and supportive and everyone told us they were confident to approach the registered manager and that they would support them and help address issues and concerns. A staff member told us, “The managers internally are supportive and helpful, they listen to any concerns I have.” Policies and processes were in place to support managers and staff for example, whistleblowing and equality and diversity policies which were easily accessible.

Staff told us of improvements since the new registered manager had been in place in getting their voices heard. Team meetings and regular supervision meetings gave staff regular opportunities to speak up. Staff also told us that the management team working on site, were approachable and accessible to them during their working day. Comments from staff included, “(Supervision meetings) regular, every three months. Also have specific team meetings” and “We have team meetings every 3 months. Am confident to speak up if I need to.” There were speak up and whistleblowing policies in place and staff told us they were confident to use these if needed. The registered manager’s new process of meetings and supervisions needed a little more time to fully embed however the feedback from staff was positive.

Equality and diversity were promoted and valued at the service. Staff were from diverse backgrounds and all told us they were treated fairly and respected whilst working at the service. The registered manager told us that staff had completed equality and diversity training and other specific training to ensure staff had a good understanding of all aspects of difference. An equality and diversity policy was in place, reviewed annually. This was accessible to staff and was concise but covered all aspects to ensure that people’s cultural and religious needs were respected and appropriate support was in place.

There was some incompleteness of records with regard to accidents and incidents and some risk assessments had been missed. This was an oversight and was highlighted to the registered manager who took steps to improve this situation. Despite being new in post the registered manager had maintained oversight of most aspects of the service. Auditing processes were in place covering key areas for example, training, maintenance, health and safety and medicines. A wellbeing audit concentrated on people and reviewed relationships between staff and people to make sure that the right staff were supporting people with needs they were trained to support with. However some of the auditing processes where issues had been missed needed time to fully embed.

Positive working relationships were being established with partners and many were working well. People and their relatives told us that the home felt like part of the local community and the variety of activities on offer made them feel connected to life outside of the service. There had been communication issues in the past with visiting community nurses but we were told by the nurses that this situation had greatly improved. Professionals were complimentary about the new registered manager who they described as engaged and willing to work with them for the benefit of people. This view of partnerships working well was confirmed by the registered manager. Another professional told us, “We generally have a good working relationship with Claydon House, with generally effective use of the systems (communication and timely medical interventions for people), with positive feedback that it works well for them.”

Recent inconsistencies in management which had contributed to the oversights in auditing has meant that the service has not always been focussed on continuous improvement and learning from past issues or concerns. The registered manager had fully acknowledged and identified these concerns and was putting together more meaningful and measurable processes to guarantee complete management oversight. Evidence of these new processes was seen during the assessment but time was needed for them to fully embed.