Hawkhurst House Proactive Assessment Unit

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 64 (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 registered manager led a positive culture and worked with staff to make sure they understood their values and expectations. People and their relatives gave positive feedback such as, “They are all amazing!”

The provider’s leadership team had recently changed and were in the process of introducing new systems and processes. Staff were confident about the changes and said they were not overwhelmed and felt positive.
Staff commented “(The registered manager) is approachable and treats us well” and “We work well as a team and pull together.”

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 registered manager led a team which included registered nurses, senior carers and care staff as well as ancillary staff. The registered manager told us the staff team worked hard, and they felt lucky to have them. Staff were equally positive about the support they received from the registered manager.
A relative said, “(The registered manager) runs a tight ship”

The registered manager and staff understood the uniqueness of the service they were providing and the regular changes they needed to make to ensure people received a service that met their needs.
Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and could raise any concerns. Staff said, “I always get the support I need.”

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

When complaints had been made, these had not always been responded to appropriately to ensure people or relatives felt they had been listened to and heard.
However, people and relatives told us, “I would speak to the manager if I was concerned” and “I have spoken with the manager, and they have resolved things.”

Staff said they were able to raise concerns and were confident they would be listened to, and action would be taken. Staff knew who to go to outside of the service if they felt they were not being listened to and said they were happy to do this to keep people safe if the need arose.

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.
There was an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy that sought to provide a diverse workforce. Although the majority of staff were recruited from abroad and did not match the ethnic background of most people, this did not impact on the care people received or their interactions with staff. People and their relatives did not raise any concerns in relation to staff and were positive about the care they received.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s leadership and governance accountabilities had recently changed. The registered manager and staff were continuing to use the governance systems in place previously, however reporting structures had changed, such as to the board, which meant the governance system was not robust at the time of our visit, to ensure sustainability and accountability.

The new leadership team were in the process of setting new systems up, so changes were being made. However, it was clear the monitoring process in use to pick up areas for improvement were working. Quality and safety remained a priority and where improvements were needed, an action plan clearly identified these, and remedial action was taken to address any shortfalls.

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 and registered manager worked closely with partners from health and social care teams. Partners referred people into the service to support them to move out of a hospital setting and into the service to have an assessment of their needs and to increase their mobility and independence. The registered manager told us a close working relationship had developed where they met regularly with partners to ensure the service continued meet positive outcomes.
Liaison managers were in post to support the transition in and out of the service, working with the appropriate external professionals and partners.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Incidents and accidents were reported by staff, signed off by the registered manager and reported up through the organisation. This meant there was an oversight of incidents through the organisation.
However, care plans and risk assessments were not always updated and reviewed following an incident, to evidence that action was being taken to learn lessons. It was not clear that themes were analysed, to check if there were areas of concern to alert staff to, such as the time of day or particular parts of the building people were in when an incident happened, to improve outcomes for people.
There was limited evidence that a focus of continuous learning was a priority. For example, staff meetings did not show discussions were held in relation to incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints.