Burger 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating remains unchanged, and we identified a breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Systems for auditing the safety and quality in the service were in place but were not always effective in addressing all the issues we identified. The newly appointed manager understood where areas of improvement were required in the service but needed support from the provider to address this in a timely manner. Staff told us they felt listened to by the new manager, who understood the service and the people living there well. Systems and processes were in place to support and promote workforce equality, diversity and inclusion within 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.

Staff told us they felt listened to by leaders and felt equality and diversity was supported within the service, but people living at the service gave mixed feedback. Comments included, “We can definitely raise things and they will be listened to, whether it’s about the service, a client, or ourselves” and “The management here is well-coordinated, they have a listening ear and open communication and you don’t get that everywhere.”

Meetings with people who lived at the service were held on a regular basis and people told us they felt listened to. Staff meetings were also held regularly. The manager told us they were working with staff to make sure they understood the vision and purpose of the service, as there had been misunderstanding about this under previous management.

Staff told us they felt the new manager understood the service and people well, and knew the priorities for improvement. A staff member said, “[Manager] is very approachable. It helps that she’s worked here a long time and she’s been a support worker, so she understands the job and the people and the service and she wants to make things as good as they can be.” However, we did not always see the services vision and values reflected in the provision of care. For example, people did not always feel involved in their care. The manager was addressing this, by working with staff, but further time was needed to embed this.

The management team knew people living at the service and understood their support needs. However, the new manager had identified areas for improvement in the service and although they were being supported by members of the provider’s wider management team, they needed increased support to achieve this. The provider assured us this support would be put in place.

Staff told us managers were available, approachable and supportive, and listened to people and staff. They told us they felt confident to raise issues and received feedback. Feedback included, “The managers are very supportive, you can ask for things, training and other things, and they will help you. You can talk to them about anything.” Managers responded well to issues raised by staff, people living at the service and partners. We saw an example of a response to a professional involved in a person’s care who had cause to raise concerns about a staff issue. The manager accepted responsibility, apologised and explained the actions they had taken to address and resolve the issue.

Systems were in place to address concerns or issues raised. This included incident analysis with lessons learned, surveys from people involved with the service, lessons learned and action plans. Staff supervisions, keyworker meetings, MDT meetings, quality assurance audits. We saw this reflected in the service improvement plan.

Staff spoke positively of the inclusivity within the service. Staff told us supervisions and team meetings took place, where they could make suggestions about the running of the service. They told us they felt able to raise things outside of these processes and were confident their ideas would be considered. They also told us protected characteristics were reviewed as part of the recruitment process.

Systems and processes were in place to support and promote workforce equality, diversity and inclusion within the service. The manager told us they were working with the staff team to improve support for new staff. For example, the manager was addressing an issue raised by people about a language barrier with some overseas staff by arranging support from an English tutor.

Prior to this assessment, the manager had already identified where improvements were needed at the service. Whilst they were working to address the issues, they recognised the need for support to make sure action was taken in a timely way. Staff told us that, although relatively new in post, they believed the manager would be effective in improving the service. They said senior managers regularly visited and were approachable. Feedback from staff was positive and included, “I feel confident in [the manager], she knows what needs to improve and she knows how she’s going to do it”, “Since [manager’s] come in I’ve noticed a massive difference with the staff and how supported they feel. The residents have said it feels more positive now” and “[Senior managers] are here quite a lot, and they do chat to staff, find out how things are going.”

Systems for auditing the safety and quality in the service were in place but were not always effective in addressing all the issues we identified. For example, whilst audits had recognised the need for risk assessments to be reviewed, they had not identified the specific issues we found, which meant people could be at risk of harm or injury. In addition, actions identified in the most recent internal inspection report lacked detail of how the issues would be addressed and who would support the manager to achieve the improvements needed. The service improvement plan had also identified issues needing to be addressed but had much of the responsibility for action on the manager, without detail of how the wider management and quality team would provide support to make sure improvements were made in a timely way.

People we spoke with gave us examples of how they had been supported to engage in local groups, to support their wellbeing.

Staff told us they worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received appropriate care. The manager also told us they were looking for more opportunities within the local community for people to engage with.

The service had received positive feedback from partners involved in supporting people living at the home. For example, a professional had described the care plans they looked at as, “very good and very detailed” and another said, “staff have done a fantastic job with managing [person] with the resources they have.”

Systems and processes were in place to ensure the service worked with partners and the local community. For example, the manager was involved in the local authority’s provider network forum. This is an opportunity for providers in the locality to share models of working, good practice and ideas for improving services. The manager was also working in partnership with the local authority’s enhanced monitoring programme to effect improvement at the service.

Staff told us they felt listened to by the new manager and by the wider management team. Staff felt they could make suggestions for improvement at the service. However, further work was required to embed the culture of learning into the service.

The manager had already identified some of the issues around processes for learning and improvement, prior to our assessment. However, further time was needed to embed good practice into the service. The manager had also visited another of the provider’s services to liaise with and learn from the manager of that service. They said they were encouraged by the provider to network with other managers to share ideas and good practice innovations.