Lyles 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

Leaders at the service treated staff with respect and value. The manager was visible throughout the home and knew people living at the service well. The provider had good oversight of the home. Audit processes were in place and managers completed these regularly. A development plan was in place to help drive improvement. This required updating at the time of our visit, however the manager was aware of this. The provider told us they plan to reduce the frequency of auditing now that improvements were started to become embedded within the service. This was to enable the manager to spend more time with people and staff.

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.

We observed staff and leaders to promote a positive culture within the service. Staff were treated with respect and value. People and their relatives described the home as having a warm and friendly atmosphere. The manager spoke with care about people and had built good relationships with them and their relatives. We found Lyles House to be led by dedicated leaders, with a clear strategy and vision.

The service had achieved significant improvements since our last assessment. The culture of the home was positive and had people's care as the main focus of its activities. The manager spoke about wanting to continue to develop Lyles House and was open to feedback and suggestions.

We received consistently positive feedback from people and staff in relation to the management team and provider. We saw, and staff told us, that the manager led the service with integrity and compassion. The provider maintained a high level of visibility within the service and worked in partnership with the management team to maintain strong oversight. One person told us 'I do think it is well run. The manager is one of the best, yes I am very happy here'. People knew the care home owner as they spent time with people and were visible within the service regularly.

The managers and the provider led the service as a team, and were able to challenge each other professionally. Whilst the deputy manager had received formal supervision with their line manager, the manager had not. The provider told us they plan to introduce formal supervision for the manager as ongoing support.

Staff were positive about working at Lyles House. The leaders of the service were keen to create a culture where staff felt able to speak freely with confidence. The manager told us they encourage staff to work in a transparent way, especially when things went wrong, so lessons could be learnt.

The provider had workforce systems, policies, and procedures in place to support staff in speaking up and raising concerns. Staff also receiving training covering safeguarding and whistle blowing. Staff had opportunities to raise concerns through staff meetings or individual supervision sessions. Information on speaking up to external agencies, such as the local authority, was also readily available.

Staff told us they were valued by the provider. Staff told us they worked as a team and enjoyed working at the service. Our observations found there to be a respectful and pleasant culture amongst staff and leaders.

Policies and procedures were in place to support staff to carry out their roles to the best of their ability. Recruitment processes were robust and inclusive. Where staff had applied for more senior positions internally, applications were considered fairly and equally.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Lines of accountability were forming amongst the staff team, and the service had began to up skill some staff to undertake quality and governance checks. We spoke with the management team about the significant amount of audits they were undertaking. They told us these were implemented in response to our previous assessment as they were keen to drive improvements. Whilst these audits drove improvement early on, some were now at risk of becoming less effective as they were undertaken too frequently. The management team told us they were reviewing their long term governance strategy now that changes were becoming further embedded.

The management team and provider undertook a significant amount of audits as part of their quality assurance processes. The amount and frequency of audits undertaken would benefit from being reviewed to ensure sustainability in the long term. Improvements in oversight and governance were notable, and the manager and staff team were proud of the advancements they had made. Where governance audits and quality processes identified concerns, we saw action was taken in a timely way.

Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed communication was good and they were confident staff worked well with external health and social care professionals. People spoke highly of the external entertainers and services such as hairdressers who visited Lyles House.

The management team told us they had regular consultations with healthcare professionals in relation to people's healthcare needs. We also saw that external entertainers, hairdressers and beauticians visited the service. There were limited opportunities for people to go out on trips, which the service would benefit from reviewing.

Health and social care professionals told us they had no concerns with the service provided.

Processes were in place for engaging with the local community, however this was mostly undertaken within the service. We did not receive any concerns from people about this, however the service would benefit from discussing trips out and external community engagement ideas with people. The service worked closely with the local authority, and were keen to accept any additional training and support offered to them.

We saw, and staff told us, that they received sufficient learning and development opportunities. Staff practice was regularly observed with constructive feedback given to drive improvement. Staff meetings were productive and a good opportunity for ideas and innovation to be shared amongst the staff team.

The registered manager was keen to keep themselves up to date with best practice guidelines and learning opportunities. They had worked closely with the local authority and CQC in response to their previous assessment to ensure the service made the improvements necessary. Feedback was accepted and implemented in a timely way.