Barton Lodge

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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on equality, inclusion, and engagement. We found that people's experiences with the care and engagement they received differed depending on their level of care need. For example, people who could access communal areas experienced more regular opportunities to participate in activities. We found that the dining experiences of people who required nursing care were not as positive as those who did not.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty. During this assessment, we identified breaches of the legal regulations. This meant leaders had not always identified and taken action to ensure people received care that was in line with legal requirements. However, overall, staff felt they could approach leaders with any concerns they had. One staff member said, “[Registered manager] is very approachable, I see them around every day, they will help out and get stuck in with us.” Relatives also told us the management team were responsive to them. One relative told us, “The management team is always visible.” Another told us, “The management team is really good and supportive. If we ask any questions. They are happy to respond.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.  People and relatives did not raise any concerns to indicate they could not speak up or their voices would not be heard. There were systems in place which encouraged the freedom to speak up. For example, staff were able to raise concerns anonymously.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff we spoke with confirmed they were treated fairly. The provider’s policies promoted equality, diversity and inclusion.

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. Despite the provider having governance systems in place, these were not always effective. The provider had not independently found concerns we identified during our assessment, for example, in relation to inaccurate care plans, medicines management and equipment and environmental safety. However, the provider responded to our concerns which included reviewing these areas, making improvement and planned further actions they would take. We will check for sustained improvement at our next assessment.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. A relative said, “My brother and I are involved in care planning. We are participating in the decision-making process with our [relative] and will be notified of any changes.”

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Although we identified shortcomings in the governance processes, the provider prioritised learning from these experiences and implementing improvements. When issues arose, staff teams were debriefed and encouraged to share their ideas on how to drive change. Lessons learned were also communicated across different services to promote broader organisational learning. In response to our findings, the provider acted quickly to address any immediate issues and developed a continuous improvement plan to demonstrate their commitment to making progress.