Forster 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

The provider’s governance and quality assurance systems were sufficiently effective to ensure the delivery of good quality care and support. Audits and checks completed enabled the service to identify areas of improvement for the service. However, we found the quality assurance systems did not always identify all areas of improvement.

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 we spoke with understood the values and vision for the organisation. Staff and management understood the importance of listening to the views of people and their relatives about the service. Staff understood people’s human rights and told us about some ways in which they supported people with their diverse needs. We observed the registered manager’s passion in wanting to provide good quality care which was reflected by staff who worked at the home.

Processes ensured staff had a shared vision and values regarding the care and support delivered. People and their relatives had been provided with clear information on how to raise suggestions and concerns about the service. Management initiated surveys to seek people’s views about the service, enabling them to contribute to its development. Risk assessment and care planning processes resulted in care plans reflecting and acknowledging people’s diverse needs.

Staff told us the management team were accessible and approachable. They told us they felt supported and if they needed to speak to one of the management team, they were easy to contact. One staff member said, “I don’t ever have an issue with getting in touch with the manager.” The management team understood how to promote safe recruitment practices.

Regular supervision was provided to staff. Management were in the home daily and a 24/7 on call system was in place. The registered manager would complete competency assessments along with the clinical lead. We also saw the management team provided care and support to people.

Staff told us they knew about the service’s whistleblowing policy and knew how to raise concerns if they had any.

There was a whistle blowing policy in place. Staff were informed about this as part of their induction. Staff could access the policy if needed. Staff were also provided with the employee handbook when starting with the provider.

Staff felt the management team took into account their equality, diversity and inclusion and treated them fairly. They gave examples of information and guidance they had received from the provider to help support them with their particular circumstances. All the staff we spoke with told us they were offered flexibility to enable them to gain what they felt was a good work life balance. Staff told us they attended regular staff meetings, which were productive and enabled them to openly raise issues and concerns.

The provider had policies and procedures around equality, diversity and inclusion. We found guidance and information was also available in the employee’s handbook.

The registered manager told us they had a training tracker to monitor the compliance of the service. These were regularly checked and available for all management to view as required.

The provider’s governance systems were effective and enabled the management to have oversight, monitor and manage risks. Audits completed by staff and management had identified concerns and action plans were in place. We saw action plans were either in progress or signed off as completed. The home had in place service improvement plans and set outcomes to improve the service for the future.

People and relatives told us staff assisted them in arranging support from other healthcare services as needed.

Staff and management we spoke with told us they collaborated with all relevant professionals, stakeholders and agencies, such as district nurses and general practitioners. The management team told us how they communicated and interacted with stakeholders and health professionals.

We received mixed feedback from partners who were working with the service. Some feedback was positive, and we were told how the service engaged with them and were attentive in ensuring people moved into the service safely and with minimum impact. However, other experiences had not been so positive and left partners with concerns of the care provided.

Processes were in place to ensure external partners were notified of relevant information. For example, the management team completed CQC notifications, based upon information brought to their attention and had raised safeguarding concerns with the local authority safeguarding team.

The registered manager had improvement plans in place. We saw where feedback was received it was actioned within appropriate timescales to ensure completion.

Systems and processes to support learning and improvement in people’s care were in place. Incidents and accidents were reported and investigated. Learning from past safeguarding incidents was found to be in place. We saw actions and new ways of working in place following the learning from these concerns. Staff were appropriately supported to develop their skills and knowledge to provide safe and effective care. Staff had training provided to them to help them meet people’s person-centred needs.