Martindale Road

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 identified breaches of Regulation in relation to good governance. There were systems and processes for identifying and improving quality of care. These were not always operated effectively because people did not always have good quality experience or outcomes. The provider had identified improvements were needed and had started to plan to make these. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they did not feel part of a shared culture or organisational direction. They did not have a well-developed understanding of the organisation's values and visions. They did not know how to follow best practice to provide good quality care.

There were a range of policies and procedures and the organisation worked with others to understand and develop best practice. The provider's values and strategy had not been developed within this service.

Staff did not have confidence in the leadership of the service. They told us they did not have opportunities to discuss their work, felt there was a lack of direction and guidance and did not trust managers to listen or support them.

The provider had a scheme of delegation where senior managers had oversight of the service. The organisation had failed to identify problems at the service in a timely manner. Shortly before the assessment, they recognised this system had not always worked effectively because they had not always identified or responded when problems arose.

Staff told us they had been frightened to speak up. They told us that when they had done so in the past this had led to negative consequences or had not been acted on.

The provider had systems to enable staff to speak up. The regional manager told us they recognised staff lacked confidence in this area, so they had provided support and information to help staff feel more confident and know who to speak with if they felt they had not been heard when raising concerns with local managers.

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.

Staff did not feel engaged in the processes to help improve the service. However, staff said that they felt there had been recent improvements and they now had better opportunities to be heard and contribute they experiences.

The systems and processes for ensuring good quality care were not operated effectively. The provider had not recognised or taken timely action to address problems until bad practice had been embedded. They had started to identify where improvements were needed but had not had time to make the necessary changes. The provider had systems to ensure information was handled appropriately, including the confidentiality of records.

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.

Staff did not feel they had opportunities to learn or improve practice.

The provider's systems for monitoring and improving quality were not always implemented effectively. People experienced task-based care which did not always meet their individual needs. They were not always supported in line with best practice for caring for people with a learning disability.