Matson 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 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 71 (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.

Leaders promoted an open, inclusive and person‑centred culture. Staff and managers shared clear values and demonstrated commitment to person centred, high‑quality care. One professional said, “It is evident that Matson House benefits from strong leadership. [The registered manager and their] deputy, lead by example and maintain a positive, respectful relationship with their team. Staff feel valued, their views are listened to, and there is a clear culture of shared responsibility.”

The provider had an inclusive management team 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 demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the people who used the service. People, relatives, staff and professionals told us they felt the service was well managed. One relative said, “The [registered manager] is excellent. For example, they took [my relative abroad] with two other [people]. We couldn’t possibly endeavour to do that. [My relative] so enjoyed it.” A professional said, “The leadership team model transparency, good communication, and a commitment to continuous improvement. Their approach ensures the service is safe, person‑centred, and consistently striving for high‑quality outcomes.” We asked a person who lived at Matson House whether they thought management listened to them and managed the home well. They told us, “Yes, they would be kicked out by me if not.” A staff member told us, “I think [the registered manager] is amazing. She manages to be everything to everybody… The deputy manager is also amazing. She works hard and supports team leaders and staff well.”

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

Policies were in place to support whistleblowing, and the manager promoted a culture of speaking up. Team meetings and supervisions were held regularly, and staff told us they felt included and were able to share their views freely and without fear of repercussion. One staff member said, “Management [are] always open to suggestions about improvements and take suggestions on board.”

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. Equality and diversity principles were embedded in practice and policy. There was evidence of investment in staff well-being, training and development, including initiatives to recognise and reward staff contributions by the registered manager.

Whilst the provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance, they had not always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. For example, the environmental concerns we identified on inspection, had been raised in audits on a recurring basis. Despite this, the provider had not taken timely action to mitigate the risks to people.

Staff understood their duties and accountability. At the time of the inspection, the management team were in the process of reviewing and strengthening the ‘keyworker’ process, to further embed systems of accountability and good governance.

Quality auditing and monitoring took place to review the quality of care provided.

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.

Management and staff worked closely with relatives, health and social care agencies, the local authorities and specialist teams to drive improvement and meet people’s needs. Records we viewed and conversations with the management team and staff confirmed this. One professional told us, “Communication between the service, myself as [an external professional], and the family has been consistently effective. [The registered manager and deputy] maintain open channels of communication, ensure accurate information‑sharing, and proactively involve all parties in decision‑making to support the best outcomes.” Another professional said, “Management here are brilliant. Both managers here are so welcoming and communication is really clear on all levels.”

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. Policies were current and accessible, guiding staff in expected practice. There was clear evidence of continuous improvement, with lessons learned informing ongoing updates.