• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Partridge House Nursing and Residential Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Leybourne Road, Off Heath Hill Avenue, Brighton, East Sussex, BN2 4LS (01273) 674499

Provided and run by:
Tradstir Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

Report from 25 November 2024 assessment

On this page

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 December 2024

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed 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.

Shared direction and culture

Score: 3

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The RM worked closely with staff and had ensured an open, transparent culture which focused on improving and learning without apportioning blame. Staff told us they felt proud to work at Partridge House and worked well together as a team to ensure that people received a good quality of care. The manager told us the emphasis was always that Partridge House was people’s home. The RM had asked staff to think of two things they could not live without, then consider how they would feel if they were taken away from them just because they had to move to into a residential home. This demonstrated the importance of taking the time to get to know people, their personalities, likes and dislikes to ensure what was important to them could be incorporated into their day. For example, people who liked to dress a particular way, wear make-up, or enjoyed smoking.

Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders

Score: 3

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Staff spoke highly of the RM and told us they felt they were approachable and supportive. And there was an award for employee of the month where staff were nominated to receive the award. One told us, “It is a good place to work, we are a really good team.” The RM maintained a high level of oversight of all aspects of the home and how care was provided. The RM felt supported with regional clinical support and regular visits from the regional manager. Weekly home manager business support meetings took place to look at trends and themes across services, with the emphasis on shared learning. Alongside regular internal and external auditing to identify any areas for improvement.

Freedom to speak up

Score: 3

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Information was displayed around the home to remind staff of policies and procedures in place to support them should they need to raise any concerns, these included who to contact. Staff told us they aware of the whistleblowing policy.

Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion

Score: 3

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 told us they felt they were treated equally and that there was a supportive culture at the home. Staff were given opportunity to give their feedback and to discuss any issues or concerns at staff meetings or on a one-to-one basis during supervision.

Governance, management and sustainability

Score: 3

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate. There was a robust process for the continuous governance and oversight of all aspects of the home. We saw that inhouse, provider and external auditing was completed. When any areas of improvement were identified, these had been actioned promptly. The RM demonstrated a proactive response to any areas of improvement highlighted and valued all feedback to ensure that there was a culture of openness to facilitate ongoing learning. For example, following feedback an oral care audit had been introduced. When appropriate, group supervisions and refresher training had been provided for staff, with competencies and workshops taking place to provide further learning and drive improvements.

Partnerships and communities

Score: 3

Staff built relationships with community groups. The activity coordinator told us they had arranged for a group of local pre-school children to visit to sing carols. A church group visited the home and other local entertainers. Staff liaised with local GP’s and other healthcare providers when appropriate.

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.

Learning, improvement and innovation

Score: 3

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The RM supported extra training for staff to support continued learning. For example, following some areas of improvement identified in relation to people’s nutritional needs, the RM sought to arrange further training from the SALT team, however, this could not be arranged. The RM looked at other ways to seek further training for staff and arranged alternative online training via an external nutrition company. The RM told us this had been really helpful, and a number of improvements had been implemented. The RM was passionate and committed to ensure people received the best care possible to meet their individual needs and to ensure Partridge House was a happy home environment for people.