Paisley Court

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

We assessed 2 quality statements in the well led key question and found areas of improvement was required. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. There was a clear management structure. The provider had systems and processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, however they were not always used consistently to identify and bring about improvements. Daily checks had not always taken place as required in line with the providers governance systems. We found areas for improvement which could have been addressed in a timelier way through the consistent use of daily checks. Staff consistently told us they felt unsupported by the management team. Staff told us they did not feel managers promoted a positive and inclusive culture. They told us they felt unsupported and reluctant to raise concerns as they didn’t feel they were listened to, and concerns were acted upon.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff consistently told us during our site visit they did not always feel managers were approachable and listened to them. Comments staff made during the site visit included, “Feel assured by leadership and confident if had to raise something would be dealt with”, “Feel people are safe, team dynamics could be improved and staffing levels, the managers don’t listen when we raise this”, “Do not feel the managers are approachable, get sick of opening my mouth”, "They are really unapproachable” and “Feel the leaders are good but don’t always act on certain things.” Following the site visit the registered manager shared with us some written feedback they received from other staff which included, ‘I have always found both [manager and deputy manager] to be supportive and approachable’, ‘Always been approachable helpful and understanding’ and ‘[Manager and deputy manager] are approachable and caring towards staff.’

The provider had well established governance systems and processes, however, there were inconsistencies in the completion of some audits and checks for ensuring the safety and quality of the service. Records of home managers and team leader daily walkarounds were not completed each day as required. There were significant gaps in the daily walkaround records for all 4 suites. The registered manager told us more walkarounds had taken place, but the required records had not been completed to reflect the findings. Managers had not always identified and mitigated risk in a timely way through the use of the providers governance systems including deployment of staff, damaged and unclean equipment and environmental hazards.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We received mixed feedback from staff during and after our site visit about the management of the home. During the site visit staff consistently told us they did not always feel listened to, valued, and appreciated by managers. Comments staff made during the site visit included, “Lack of appreciation, the managers don’t appreciate everything we do, they don’t listen”, “I would not raise anything, feel the managers would not act”, “I get sick of opening my mouth”, “Feels like the managers have kind of given up on us”, “I feel the managers get fed up with being approached, puts us off going to them” and “No support from managers and don’t feel they listen so don’t bother raising anything with them.” Following the site visit the registered manager shared with us some written feedback they received from other staff which included, ‘There is always an open door at the manager’s office’, ‘Nothing is too much trouble and if any problems they [managers] will help out at all times’ [Manager and deputy manager] have supported me through difficult times’ and ‘[Manager] always been here to help me in any way she can.’ The registered manager and deputy manager told us they felt supported by senior leaders within the organisation.

Safe recruitment processes were followed for the appointment of leaders and there was a clear management structure operated at the service which everyone understood. There was low morale amongst the staff team with many telling us they felt unsupported and were not listened to. Staff meeting records did not always demonstrate a compassionate and inclusive culture. Meeting minutes lacked acknowledgement of staff achievements and hard work. They focused on things staff should and should not be doing and lacked a supportive approach. This was further evidenced from feedback from staff.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.