Archived: Bay 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

We found 1 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to good governance. Leaders lacked the skills and knowledge to lead effectively. Incidents were not always escalated appropriately. Governance arrangements we ineffective and did not lead to positive outcomes. Lessons were not always learned

This service scored 32 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff were very positive about the leadership team. Staff told us the registered manager was kind and always available to speak to about any concerns

Leaders lacked the skills and knowledge to lead effectively. Whilst we found some areas of improvement in the service, we also continued to find areas of concern as reported in the other quality statements. The leadership team failed to identify these concerns and lacked the skills to understand the legislative requirements. For example, in relation to health and safety legislation.

Whilst, staff told us they would be comfortable to raise any concerns and would be confident to raise with other partners such as the local authority or CQC, we found this had not always happened and some incidents were not reported to the relevant authorities as required. This meant people were at risk of abuse.

The provider had a clear policy in place which set out how to escalate concerns, however we found there were some incidents that had not been escalated to the relevant authorities.

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.

Leaders told us they had redeveloped governance processes in the service. The registered manager told us how developing a planner for the year had helped them keep on top of the various checks they had in place.

Governance arrangements were ineffective and did not lead to positive outcomes. Whilst we found additional checks had been put into place, they failed to identify the issues we found during this inspection. We have reported on these concerns in more detail in the other quality statements.

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 told us they attended regular meetings to discuss any incidents or concerns and how they can learn and improve.

The provider did not have clear processes in place to learn lessons. The provider had developed an action plan after the last inspection which identified actions taken to address shortfalls, this document rated most items as complete, however the areas highlighted during this inspection had not been captured or were not identified. Areas of concern identified during this inspection were similar to our last inspection (report published 24 January 2024). The provider had not learnt from the concerns raised at the previous inspection.