Royal College Manchester

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

There was a positive culture that was person‑centred, open, inclusive and empowering. Leaders and managers shaped this culture by engaging with staff, people, relatives and stakeholders. The provider’s values honesty, involvement, compassion, dignity, respect and independence were consistently reflected in daily practice.

Staff reported feeling respected, valued and well supported by leaders. They felt confident to speak up and challenge poor practice when 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.

Leaders demonstrated strong awareness of priorities and issues within the service and communicated clear goals for the future. Poor practice was addressed promptly and effectively to ensure people were kept safe. Leaders were visible, consistent and approachable. One staff member told us, “Managers check on our well‑being, they listen to staff.” Another said, “Seniors here are very hands‑on and supportive. You are never on your own.”

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

There were strong and effective policies to support speaking up, and people and relatives were encouraged to share feedback. One relative told us, “We talk to the manager they have a weekly meeting, and issues get addressed. If it’s serious, we go to head of adult services.” Regular review meetings were held with relatives, and the registered manager operated an open‑door policy, allowing people and staff to speak with them without an appointment. A staff member commented, “The managers are very approachable.”

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 service operated in line with the Equality Act 2010 and employed a diverse workforce. Staff felt well supported, recognised and included in conversations about delivering care. One staff member said, “I have been supported since I started. The managers are really helpful and have helped me settle in.” Another shared, “The manager is so supportive if we have any problems. The team works so well here it just flows.”

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. However, they did not always tell us about some concerns such as safeguarding concerns.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the assessment. They were visible within the service and demonstrated a good understanding of daily operations and the care being delivered. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. One relative said, “The managers and staff are very accommodating and ask for our feedback.”

However, some relatives felt that certain senior leaders were less receptive to feedback and could improve their engagement. One relative told us, “Some of the top senior managers could perhaps listen better sometimes I feel they are disconnected.” We were not always informed about safeguarding concerns by the provider. We have discussed this during the assessment, and the registered manager provided reassurance this was going to be reviewed, and all future notifications were going to be submitted promptly.

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 developed strong links with a range of stakeholders and community partners to ensure these relationships enhanced outcomes for people using the service. Leaders recognised the value of external expertise and contributions.

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.

There was a strong culture of organisational learning. Areas for improvement were identified, and prompt action was taken when required. Leaders were knowledgeable about quality issues and challenges within the service. For example, the registered manager and nominated individual discussed recruitment challenges and how they mitigated these risks, including creating and using a pool of bank staff.

There was a clear focus on reducing restrictive practices. Staff received appropriate training and worked with relevant professionals, such as a positive behaviour coach, leading to a significant reduction in restrictive interventions. A staff member told us, “We are encouraged to reflect and learn from lessons.” Another explained, “We do use physical intervention, but only as a last resort and it must be reasonable and proportionate. There has been a reduction in physical interventions.”