Marina View 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

We found a breach of the legal regulation. The service had several managers since opening in October 2023 and the service has been without a manager who is registered with the CQC, which is their legal responsibility. This had a direct influence on the governance of the service. At provider level, there was a clear governance structure, although we found the provider was slow to arrange additional support to address concerns such as the high number of safeguarding alerts and medicines errors. We found that systems were not in place to make sure that pre-admission assessments, risk assessments and care plans contained sufficient and up to date information to guide staff about how to care for people. Systems to monitor the service were managed on an adhoc basis. Managers were not always clear about their legal responsibilities. However, staff told us they felt that new management arrangements were positive, and they felt able to speak up.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff gave mixed feedback around leaders and whether there was a positive, compassionate, listening culture at the home which focused on learning and improvement. A staff member said, “I don’t feel things change following staff feedback.” Staff reported that morale had been low, however new management had begun to improve this. However, despite the barriers they sometimes faced, it was clear that staff prioritised safe, high-quality and compassionate care.

The provider had policies which supported equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion.

Staff generally gave positive feedback about the new manager at the home and confirmed they seemed to have the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively. However, we were not assured leaders could be alerted to any poor culture which may affect the quality of people’s care or have a detrimental impact on staff, because of inconsistent management. A staff member said, “The home has had 5 managers since opening. They are knowledgeable and intelligent people, but we need consistency.”

There have been several managers since the home opened in October 2023. This has made it difficult for managers to lead effectively and consistently. The provider has now appointed a new manager who has the right knowledge, skills and experience to improve leadership.

Not all staff agreed they were encouraged to raise concerns or were confident their voices would be heard. Staff confirmed team meetings were infrequent, and we received mixed feedback about staff feeling able to speak up about issues and being listened to. A staff member said, “Yes, we are listened to. Concerns were raised about equipment at the last meeting and this is now in place. However, another told us, “It doesn’t feel you are listened to when you say you are struggling. Staff have been promised lots of things that haven’t come through.”

There was a freedom to speak up policy and whistleblowing policy.

We received mixed feedback about the culture of the organisation and leaders. Whilst it was acknowledged the new manager seemed fair, they had only been in post a short time. This meant they had not been able to take action to improve any disparities in the experience of staff. A staff member said, “We’ve had a really bad experience in the past with staff treatment. The new manager is nice. It’s early stages but it seems their door is always open and if there’s something needed, they will stay behind and help the team.”

There were policies to support workforce diversity and inclusion.

Staff commented that the new manager had started to measure their competencies. It was clear that new manager had already identified the concerns we found during the inspection, and had started to put measures in place to address.

Governance systems were not effective at identifying or managing risk, and overseeing performance and outcomes. There was a high number of managers since opening, and the service had been without a manager registered with CQC, which is their legal responsibility. This had caused challenges in dealing with different aspects of ensuring effective governance, risk management and accountability. There had been a high number of safeguarding alerts and medicine errors over several months. Whilst the provider were open and transparent, they were slow to arrange for additional support mechanisms to address. During the inspection we noted that risk assessments lacked detail about people's conditions, and were not linked to relevant care plans. Care plans did not contain sufficient detail and sometimes were not up to date to guide staff in how to support people properly. Although there were some audits in place, including for medicines, these had not identified or addressed concerns seen during the inspection. Evidence to show effective maintenance systems were in place was missing which made it difficult to assure safety in some areas. We were not assured that people and relatives were being listened to regarding their concerns about wider health needs being co-ordinated with external agencies. This placed people at risk of harm and was a breach of the legal regulation. Provisions have now been made to secure robust management and accountability. The number of medicines errors and safeguarding alerts have started to reduce. New management have put together a thorough action plan which is being reviewed regularly by different external agencies. Managers had not been aware of their responsibilities in terms of making statutory notifications to relevant bodies, around safeguarding alerts and serious injuries. This had put them at risk of being in breach of the regulation. This is now being addressed.

People and relatives did not have any feedback in this category.

Staff and leaders were unable to tell us about many local partnerships. We were told that the service planned to develop local fundraising events which would support community partnerships.

We did not receive feedback from partners about this category.

We were sent a policy about access to NHS services. It was not clear how this helped develop local partnerships.

We asked leaders about how they continuously learned, improved and innovated, however we were not provided with examples.

People and relatives were invited to review meetings, although we were not clear to what extent this led to improvements.