Layston Grove 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

People, relatives and staff were positive about how the service was run and the management team.

Systems were in place to drive improvement and identify any issues. Action plans were in place where needed. However, we found that some areas relating to staff culture and oversight needed further development.

The team worked with external agencies and partners to help ensure people received good care. The management team shared their vision for the service they wanted to provide, and staff were clear on expectations to achieve this.

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 gave mixed views about if the whole team were engaged in helping people live their best lives. A staff member said, “Not everyone woks the same.” Another staff member said, “I love it here, I will be here for years.” We discussed the feedback with the management team who told us of the plans and actions in place to ensure staff were working with the required culture.

The provider had a service improvement plan in place. There were also surveys sent to people, relatives, staff and professionals to obtain feedback. Meetings were held to share information. It was evidence that there needed to be some consideration with the skills and culture of staff. We observed a number of interactions where people were unable to understand what staff were trying to communicate with them.

Staff gave mixed views about the culture and approach in the home. They expressed some conflict between colleagues. A staff member said, “[Registered manager] is good, gives us guidance and support.” Another staff member said, “Managers never come up and help, even if we ask for support.”

The registered manager told us, “Over recent times I have not been out as much as I normally like due to updating of systems and training. However, I have recently increased this and hope to increase it more going forward.” Staff were positive about the provider’s senior management team who visited the home.

There were systems in place to help ensure care was personalised. Training and guidance were in place to for staff. However, further development was needed to ensure the right culture was embedded to provide a people first approach. We observed times when care did not reflect the provider’s values.

Most staff were positive about how the management team engaged with and involved them. However, some staff members gave mixed views about how effective it had been speaking with the management team. A staff member said, “I have told [member of the management team], but nothing has changed.” We spoke with the registered manager who was able to give us details on actions following staff concerns and we were assured appropriate action was being taken. Staff told us the provider’s visiting leadership team were visible and approachable.

There were resident, relative and staff meetings, supervisions and surveys carried out to help ensure staff had the opportunity to raise queries or concerns and share ideas. A survey for people and relatives was due to be sent out.

Staff felt supported and respected by the management team. They were aware of support systems available and regular contact with the provider's senior management team in addition to management within the home.

The provider had an equal opportunities policy and well being systems in place.

Most staff were positive about the management and running of the service. A staff member said, “The manager us lovely, I love her, was off for couple of months and was chaos better now she’s back.” The registered manager told us they had not been always capturing their findings from walk rounds and were just addressing the points with the team. They told us going forward they would include their full findings in their records. The registered manager also told us there was a service improvement manager whose role it was to provide further training and oversight to improve people’s experience, and this was due to commence.

There were governance systems to help identify and address any issues. These checks covered key areas such as health and safety, falls and medicines. Where issues were found, a plan was implemented and actioned to resolve it. However, when we reviewed these processes, there was not always a completion date included, and we did not find any mention of the shortfalls we had identified. The areas we identified included a person-centred approach and some discrepancies in care plans. In addition, there were a number of people losing weight, while there had been referrals made to health professionals, mealtime observations had either not been completed or did not identify the lack of gap between meals or lack of snacks provided, as a possible reason.

People and relatives told us they were supported to access other professionals. A relative said, “[Person] has access to healthcare professionals when needed & I am always updated.” We observed health professionals in the home on the day of our visit.

The registered manager advised us of the agencies they worked with outside of the organisation, including the local authority, health and social agencies, and about the benefits to people and the service.

A visiting health professional told us they felt people were well cared for; staff followed advice. They said, “I think it is a nice home, and I have seen staff interacting in a nice way. I come and visit regularly. If we recommend something they are doing it, I am sure they are because I can see improvement in people’s care.”

The provider worked with external agencies to help ensure good care. This included a care providers association to access training and updates, hospice teams and other health and social care teams so health care and support were accessible.

Staff told us information was shared and training provided to drive improvements and innovation. A staff member said, “We have information shared through a message or a team meeting if a big thing.” The registered manager told us, “We have put forward team members for the Anchor leadership development programmes. We have care assistants taking part in the stepping up programme, and also a senior care assistant taking part in the team leader programme. We have a number of staff members who have also been out through for their level 2 or level 3 qualifications, including [deputy manager] who is in the progress of doing their level 5.”

Since taking over the service, the provider had implemented their systems to help identify any learning and improvement areas. There were ‘inspire projects’ aimed at making people’s lives better. These could range from granting a person’s wish to repurposing a room to improve facilities for people.

There were additional projects which included Vivaldi Social Care Project. The project aims to enhance the quality of life for people, visitors, and staff in care homes by reducing infection risks and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions.

People did not express their views on how information was shared. Relatives were positive about the processes used to share information such as the messaging system in use. The team worked with external agencies such as the local authority and a care providers association.