Eastside 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 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 remained requires improvement. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Despite some progress found at this assessment, the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 62 (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 demonstrated a positive vision and culture, and staff described a calm, respectful working environment. Staff understood expectations around professionalism, communication and person‑centred care. They valued the open approach promoted by the registered manager and felt able to raise concerns.

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.

A staff member said, “We always have meetings with management, we always give our ideas, share what we can do to improve the service,” reflecting a positive team culture.

Leaders demonstrated compassion and inclusivity, and staff described them as approachable and supportive. The registered manager had been in post since 2012 and provided long‑term stability within the service. Staff reported a positive team culture built on openness, communication and mutual respect. They told us leaders were visible and accessible, and that they promoted a calm and supportive working environment.

Senior staff understood people’s needs and modelled respectful behaviour, and staff described teamwork as a core strength. A staff member told us, “The culture is teamwork and communication”, reflecting the inclusive nature of the service. Yet the limitations in oversight and quality monitoring meant leadership did not always ensure consistent safety and quality across the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People’s relatives we spoke to told us they received good communication from the registered manager and senior staff and felt comfortable sharing feedback or concerns directly with them, knowing they would be listened to and responded to.

Staff described the registered manager and senior staff as approachable and responsive, and most said they felt safe raising issues without fear of negative consequences.

This supported an open, transparent environment where concerns and learning could be shared constructively.

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.

A senior staff member told us they held weekly reflection sessions where staff summarised their achievements and raised any concerns. They said these sessions offered a safe space for issues to be discussed, boosted confidence, and helped staff recognise their weekly progress. They also reported this supported open communication.

A senior staff member explained they promoted inclusion by recognising and celebrating the diverse cultural backgrounds within the staff team.

The provider did not have effective governance and did not consistently act on the best available information about risk.

While we could see that the provider had made improvements to their governance system since our last assessment. Although the provider used an audit matrix on a 6‑monthly cycle, their governance system did not identify several issues found during the assessment. This included concerns in fire safety, management of medicines, incomplete monitoring of behavioural needs and risk assessment. This showed weaknesses in oversight and gaps in how risks were monitored and escalated.

The team was stable and motivated. However, accountability structures did not always translate into reliable oversight, and important safety‑related information was not escalated through internal systems. Staff engagement and open communication were evident, but leadership had not fully embedded the systems needed to maintain safe and compliant practice.

We discussed this with the registered manager and advised them to make improvements to their governance system in order to improve oversight and ensure people receive safe and good quality care.

Staff said they understood the management structure, reporting lines and escalation processes.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked constructively with the local authority and other professionals to support improvement. The local authority confirmed the service worked well with them during their recent compliance activity and raised no concerns about partnership working. Staff worked with social workers when needed, which supported coordinated assessments, care planning and review.

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.

Senior staff were able to describe how learning from incidents, staff feedback and reviews informed practice.

The provider had established audit and quality‑assurance systems which were used to understand and improve the quality and effectiveness of care.

The provider recognised the identified issue regarding clarity in some care plans as a documentation quality matter rather than a lack of staff understanding, and this provided an opportunity for further improvement.