Bradbury 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

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 the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

The provider 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 provider had shared their values statement with people, setting out what they should expect from the service. Staff told us managers demonstrated the provider’s values in the way they worked. The manager told us they implemented the provider’s ‘One Council’ approach to ensure people received joined up support and had access to all the services they needed.

The provider 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.

The service had a manager in post who was in the process of applying to be registered with Care Quality Commission. Relatives told us the manager had made improvements to the service since they had been in post. Staff told us leaders were knowledgeable and provided them with the support they needed to do their job well.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service had speaking up procedures which staff were able to access if they needed. Details were shared with staff during their induction, staff meetings and supervision sessions. Staff told us they knew how to raise any concerns and were confident managers would listen to them and respond.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The provider had processes in place for staff to request flexibility in their work patterns, for example to enable staff with caring responsibilities or those with health conditions to remain working. Staff were aware of these processes and told us they felt supported by the management team.

The provider 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 acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At the last inspection we found shortfalls in the way governance systems identified areas for improvement and ensured these improvements were made. At this inspection we found this had improved. Managers completed a range of audits, surveys and observations of staff practice to monitor the quality of the service. The provider had a performance and outcomes group, which analysed the results, identified where action was needed and monitored to ensure actions were completed.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other services. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The manager told us they worked in close collaboration with a range of professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care. Examples included having access to the same recording system as the health and social care professionals, which ensured information was shared promptly. Relatives gave examples of the service working in partnership with other agencies, including health and social care services.

Professional partners gave positive feedback about working in partnership with the service to meet people’s needs. Comments included that relatives were “kept updated on the progress of their family member attending respite, with relevant information shared with them as required.” Another professional told us the service was “proactive and communicative with operational teams in Adult Social Care.”

The provider 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 contributed to safe, effective practice and research. Systems for monitoring standards of support people received were used to identify areas of improvement and ensure lessons were learned when needed. This included regular audits and quality assurance checks. Complaints were investigated and outcomes used to improve the service. Records demonstrated staff were trained and supervised appropriately.