Healey 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 outstanding. 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 82 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people.

The service’s mission statement said, “Hear me, every moment has potential and encourage my development.” It was evident during our visits that people were heard, empowered and involved in all aspects of their care; with their goals and aspirations being encouraged and met, in a very person-centred way.

Managers and staff prioritised high-quality, compassionate care with relatives telling us, “I would give [the service] 10 out of 10 for [person’s] care,” “The atmosphere is friendly, caring and I’m always greeted with a smile,” and “I cannot fault [the service].”

It was clear through observations and conversations with managers and staff, the culture of the service was person-centred, inclusive and focused on enabling people to enjoy their lives. A staff member told us, “I like supporting people, making sure they are happy and have everything they need.”

The provider had a good understanding of the challenges and needs of people using the service. The decision to employ extra bank staff was taken in response to concerns about the use of agency staff, and the impact of unfamiliar staff on people who had complex health and care needs.

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.

Staff confirmed team leaders, managers and the registered manager were approachable, supportive and led by example. A staff member said, “Good managers, they are great, very supportive, they listen, they are in the home a lot and I can always ring them and ask for help.”

The registered manager and deputy manager explained the ongoing training and support they had to improve their own knowledge and competence. Similar developmental opportunities were available to staff.

Managers spoke about succession planning at the service. They had been promoted internally and told us about recent additions to senior roles. Other staff took on extra responsibilities or became company 'champions' to help them develop.

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

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place and staff confirmed they felt able to speak up, confident their views would be listened to. A staff member told us, “Years ago, I had spoken to managers about other staff. They dealt with the issues quite well.” Another added, “Managers will always chat with us, they won’t rush us. They are very much involved.”

Regular supervisions, appraisals and team meetings gave staff the opportunity to raise any concerns about the service or their own experiences.

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 a bullying, harassment and victimisation policy in place and the worker’s handbook included information about staff rights, key policies and expected standards of conduct. Staff confirmed they felt well treated by managers and colleagues, saying, “It’s a really good team,” and “Staff help each other out.”

The registered manager explained reasonable adjustments were in place for staff who needed them. For example, light duties or extra support with communication or training.

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.

Managers completed regular walk-arounds of the service, checking staffing, people’s experience, planned activities, medications, the environment and IPC, mealtimes and several other areas.

Staff, senior staff and managers carried out a range of other checks and audits to ensure the safety and quality of care; and managers attended periodic meeting to discuss ongoing issues and develop improvement plans.

The registered manager submitted reports to external agencies and engaged positively with monitoring visits. A social care partner fed back following a recent visit, “It is a lovely service, and the staff and management are professional and dedicated to their roles. [People] all seemed happy and well cared for.”

Business continuity plans were in place for emergencies such as adverse weather, fire or structural damages.

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

Managers worked closely with the provider’s other services, and attended various provider and registered managers forums to share good practice and drive improvement.

Managers and staff understood the importance of collaborating and working in partnership with people, other services and the local community. People were very involved and engaged with the various councils and groups run by the provider. There was a clear emphasis on identifying new and creative ideas to improve the opportunities people had and their outcomes, often driven by people living at the home or staff.

The service was very transparent, and we were given several examples of when partnership working and/or and multi-disciplinary approach had been used to help improve people’s quality of life. For example, staff worked closely with community nurses to support a person to reduce their distress when receiving certain medical treatments. Where the person had previously required significant physical intervention to ensure their own and others’ safety, they were now able to be reassured by staff sitting nearby and no longer required physical intervention.

The service was embedded in the local community and was considered a valued partner. The service had close links with the provider’s daycentre which was used regularly to host community groups and events which people attended. They also supported well known charities which people living at Healey House voted upon, and sponsored the local football club. The registered manager signposted people and staff to the local ‘Men’s shed’ support group.

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.

The provider had processes in place to drive learning, improvement and innovation. The registered manager led management meetings and took responsibility for implementing agreed improvements. The provider carried out their own checks and audits, ensuring safe, good quality care and driving improvement throughout the service.

Staff had access to training and support to develop their skills around improvement and innovation. There were several ‘champions’ or topic leads. For example, IPC and nutrition and hydration. Additional training had been provided to them.

The registered manager was open and transparent during the inspection process, acknowledging the areas of improvement and keen to implement the suggested changes.