Allington House - Bournemouth

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

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.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Risk was managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care.

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

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

The provider’s senior leadership team had communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing.

Staff could explain how they were working to deliver high quality care within the budgets available.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for clients and staff.

Clients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from clients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements.

Clients and carers were involved in decision-making about changes to the service.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and governors to give feedback.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly e.g. flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at a team level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level.

Staff undertook and participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of the clients.

However, the service did not use key performance indicators that were clear and easy to measure. The provider had aligned its key performance indicators with the Care Quality Commission’s key statements but had not developed how these indicators would be met or measured.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give feedback. Directors often visited the service and were available for feedback.

Staff had opportunities to participate in research.