Chartwell Manor Care Home

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

Chartwell Manor Care Home was well-managed and staff understood the shared values of the organisation. There was a supportive culture, where staff felt listened to and were able to express their views. There was good regard for equality, diversity and inclusion. There were effective governance systems to ensure the service provided good standards of care and looked at ways to make continuous improvements.

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.

Staff were aware of the values of the organisation and described a positive working culture. The values were incorporated in interview questions when recruiting staff and discussed in staff supervision and probationary meetings. The registered manager told us there was a no blame culture when it came to reviewing and learning lessons from any incidents. This was to encourage staff to be open about reporting these events promptly.

Equality and diversity were promoted at the home. For example, staff in all roles were able to access a range of professional qualifications, if they wished to do so. There were staff from a range of cultural backgrounds and the home involved people who lived at the service in celebrating different cultures.

Staff told us leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. A member of staff told us “I love the fact that the management is open to listening to staff and supporting and ensuring individual circumstances are acknowledged. This promotes healthy working relationships among staff and helps to build therapeutic relationships among residents.” Other comments included “Leaders work effectively…they have integrity when dealing with confidential information” and “I do believe the management team do have the skills knowledge etc and lead with honesty, integrity and openness.”

The registered manager and other leaders were experienced, capable and knowledgeable, to ensure the home was run effectively and risks were well managed. They were visible around the premises on each day of the assessment, supporting the staff team and the assessment process.

The home had a positive culture, where staff felt they could speak up and would be listened to. When asked if they could raise issues, staff comments included “Yes, definitely and our staff meetings are a great forum for this,” “I am able to make suggestions and raise issues. They are then looked into and we will get feedback after” and “I can confidently approach my line manager to make comments and suggestions.” Other staff feedback included “If I have suggested something or asked for something that I needed for the residents, I have felt listened to and things got done” and “I am given the platform to make suggestions. This is done in staff meetings, handover briefings and through the staff suggestion box.”

There were processes for raising concerns and providing feedback. The whistleblowing policy included information about how to report concerns and protection of whistleblowers. Contact information was provided for external agencies who could give support, including the company’s employee assistance programme. The provider also held HR surgeries at the home, which any staff could attend.

The registered manager told us there were staff from a range of different cultural backgrounds, genders and races. They told us celebration of different cultures had provided a better understanding into the history, views and culture of staff.

The provider’s recruitment processes ensured there was adherence to equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff were representative of the local, diverse population. There was celebration of cultures as part of the provider’s annual conference the previous year and an award ceremony for the achievements of teams across the provider’s services. Achievements of staff within the home were also recognised.

There was clear accountability at the home, with staff understanding their roles and responsibilities.

There were robust processes for monitoring the quality of people’s care and identifying where improvements needed to be made. This included audits of IPC practice, care plans, catering, safe practices and governance. Action plans were put in place where work was needed to address any shortfalls. The provider had a compliance and governance team who also monitored the service. The provider had ensured we had consistently been notified of all events they were required to tell us about. Records and personal information were held securely and available to staff when required. The home had a business continuity and emergency plan in place, in the event of occurrences such as power failures, adverse weather and pandemics.

People benefitted from a service which worked in partnership with other agencies, to improve the quality of their care.

Staff told us the home worked in partnership with other agencies, such as health and social care professionals.

Partner agencies told us the home worked well with them to meet people’s needs.

There were good working relationships with other agencies and staff contacted them whenever required.

Staff said they were able to share ideas in their supervision meetings and staff meetings. They told us there were good opportunities to learn and develop in their roles.

The home used technology to assess, plan, monitor and review people’s care. The registered manager and other leaders were able to easily monitor people’s care from the electronic records and identify any areas that needed to be addressed and raise these with staff. It was also possible for authorised staff to access people’s GP records, which made clinical information readily available to nurses. The provider shared information about any lessons learned from accidents, incidents, visits from regulators, commissioners and coroners’ involvement. Good practice was also shared within the organisation.