Rendlesham Care Centre

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

We assessed 6 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found the provider had clear governance processes, which supported the safe delivery of care. However, these could be further improved. Staff were clear on their individual responsibilities and knew who was accountable for each aspect of the service. They were confident that if they raised concerns these would be effectively addressed.

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.

Inclusion and equality was included as part of the induction agenda for new staff. The management team had been working on the floor in the service to demonstrate good practice.

The provider had processes in place to communicate the direction and reinforce the culture of the organisation, such as staff meetings. Inclusion and equality was included as part of the induction agenda for new staff. The management team had been working on the floor in the service to demonstrate good practice.

The registered manager was knowledgeable and enthusiastic about their service. They were very involved in the day to day going’s on in the home and knew every person living there well. Staff were very complimentary about the management and leadership in the service. One staff said, "I feel my opinion is valued."

There were processes in place to encourage staff to speak up and to contribute ideas and suggestions for improvement. Staff had regular meetings with an agenda and were encouraged to add any items to the agenda in advance.

Staff told us they felt able to discuss any concerns with the management team. A member of care staff said, “Yes, I feel like my opinion is valued. [Registered manager] is good. It can be difficult with a new manager but she’s lovely. I can talk to her. I made a suggestion around staffing and they sorted it right away.” The registered manager told us they had an open door culture which was confirmed by staff.

Reviewing and understanding the whistleblowing process was included as part of the induction process for new staff. Regular staff meetings and individual supervision supported staff to raise concerns.

We received positive feedback from care staff regarding improvements in inclusivity since the registered manager had been in post. A member of care staff said, “The current manager is going an excellent job and it is, a happy place.” The registered manager explained the service had flexible working around staff individual needs and promoted a positive work life balance.

Staff were given regularly opportunities as a group and on a one-to-one basis to share feedback and identify new learning opportunities through regular supervision and annual appraisal. Managers were supported in their role with bespoke training and support.

We received very positive feedback from care staff regarding the management team. A member of staff said, “My manager and deputy manager are very approachable and they have done their best to support us. I am able and confident to approach them for any work related issues. They let us know on things happening in the home especially during flash meetings. The home had also called meetings to discuss issues and the management had visited the units and have discussions on issues affecting individual units or residents in the units. The management allows room for our suggestion in the best interest of the residents and have implemented or improved some of staff suggestions.” We also saw examples of where suggested improvements had been implemented.

Audits were mostly highlighting where there were shortfalls and actions that had been put into place to ensure the areas for improvement were completed. However, we saw the audits had not always identified concerns that we found, for example, infection control issues and the lack of detail in care plans. Daily head of department meetings, weekly clinical meetings and monthly governance meetings ensured a good overview of risk and performance. The registered manager was supported by the providers quality team.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise any concerns. Relatives were aware of meetings but said they would like access to minutes of the meetings.

Staff were regularly communicating with health and social care professionals in the best interests of the people being supported at Rendlesham Care Centre. The registered manager told us they were working closely with the local GP. This included weekly GP visits and quarterly meetings with the GP and other care homes.

We received positive feedback from commissioners regarding how the service worked with them.

The provider had a corporate lessons learnt procedure which supported sharing of learning across the wider organisation. The service was also working with external healthcare professionals to provide training in the service.

Staff told us they had been involved in improving the home and they felt listened to. Staff said the improvements started with the new manager and there was an effort to ensure all staff working at the home worked within their job role in the best interests of people living at the service. The management team had a strategy of how to develop staff and improve people’s care.

Staff training compliance was monitored to ensure all staff were up to date with their training and able to provide care to a good standard. The service was working with a variety of external partners to improve the quality of care provided. This included ENRICH a project to measure loneliness in the older population.