Magnolia 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 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 strong 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 and staff advocated for people and empowered them to have lives that were built on freedom, choice and equality. Each person was actively involved in their own care as far as possible, and this was regularly reviewed alongside them to ensure it continued to meet their needs. The provider understood barriers faced to participating in society by the people they supported, in were in the process of designing equality profiles for each person setting out what these factors were and how the service would work to break these down. Staff all spoke with pride about the achievements of people they supported and the vision of the service. One staff member told us, “We always put people first. I’m proud that their wellbeing, comfort and choices and our only focus. We always do what people want to do, not what staff want them to do”. A professional working with the service told us, “The overwhelming impression that I get from the residents at Magnolia House is how happy they appear to be and how well staff understand the needs of each individual”.

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.

During our inspection an interim manager was leading the service. They were knowledgeable and passionate about the people they supported, and best practice models of care for autistic people and people with a learning disability. People and staff spoke highly of the manager and that they led with integrity and openness. One staff member told us, “The manager is good and listens to us. She is really helpful and I can always speak to her or senior carer about anything”. A professional working with Magnolia House added, “The manager has been very responsive to us. It’s been a very positive experience working with the home”.

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

Staff were confident that their voice would be heard and acted upon if they spoke up. They told us there were regular opportunities to raise any concerns including supervisions, staff meetings and an internal whistleblowing process. They were knowledgeable about all the opportunities open to them and expressed confidence in accessing these. One staff member told us, “I would always speak to the manager. But I could also speak to our locality manager. We have a whistleblowing policy and I could also contact the CQC”.

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.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity and told us leaders supported them with any adaptations they needed to balance work and personal circumstances or needs. One staff member told us, “The manager is really good at being flexible if I need time away for family reasons, or for health appointments”. Leaders were good at making staff feel included and able to share and celebrate their own cultures. People and staff had recently worked together to plan an Eid party, which took place at Magnolia House yearly to mark the spiritual importance of this occasion to staff of Islamic faith.

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.

There was a high standard of governance at the service to monitor the quality of care being provided and people’s experience of living at Magnolia House. This included regular checks and audits covering environmental safety, staffing, medications, incidents and accidents and reviews of people’s care documentation. The manager conducted scheduled spot checks, which were supported by regular visits and a system of monitoring by the provider. Where things went wrong or areas of risk were identified, appropriate action plans were put in place to set out how improvements would be made.

There was an appropriate business continuity plan in place setting out how the service would act in case of an unexpected event such as extreme weather or loss of an important utility, to ensure people would continue to receive the care they required.

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.

We received highly complimentary feedback from partner organisations who worked with Magnolia House. They expressed that they had formed positive and collaborative relationships, and that service acted with integrity and openness to advocate for the people they supported. Referrals were made proactively when people’s needs changed, and the provider worked in partnership to implement strategies and guidance to promote people’s wellbeing and quality of life. For example, there had been significant work involving multiple different organisations to support one person living at the service who was in poor health. Their wellbeing had significantly improved as a result, and they were now well enough to be able to go on holiday with their peers and take part in regular activities.

One partner who worked with the service told us, “The wellbeing of the resident was clearly the focus of all the staff were doing and they were well informed about her needs. I was very impressed with the service overall”. Another stakeholder explained, “The staff really fight for people’s rights and always advocate for people. I have never had any issues and they are really good at seeking health advice for people”.

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.

There were robust systems to share learning within the service and take action when things went wrong. The manager would meet regularly with fellow managers within the provider’s services to share best practice and learning, which included learning from incidents at other services operated by the provider. There was a system in place to analyse any incidents and accidents for themes or trends. The staff team discussed each person’s needs openly at a monthly staff meeting, which included clear actions on how the service could improve their wellbeing and quality of life. Staff told us they found these meetings helpful as an opportunity to share their feedback and focuses on the care each person was receiving.