Gloucester 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

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 as requires improvement. 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.

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. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

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.

The service 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 provider’s values were boldness, compassion, passion, respect, integrity, and mutual accountability. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The providers vision and values were agenda items for yearly appraisals and discussed during team meetings.

Managers engaged staff in decisions about the service as part of the open culture of the service, and staff were encouraged to give feedback. Monthly staff meetings were held where staff could give feedback and share views.

The service 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 organization. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had an excellent understanding of the service they managed, and the client group which they served.

Staff told us that managers within the service were visible and approachable. Staff said they felt supported by leaders and senior staff members and could approach them to raise concerns or support when needed.

Leaders within the service provided clinical leadership to staff. Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high-quality care.

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

Staff said they felt confident to raise concerns, and that management were open and available to speak to. Staff said there was a culture of openness and honesty in the service.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from people, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. For example, changes had been made to the groups and activities on offer because of feedback. Feedback was discussed during regular team meetings and views on how to improve the service were shared by managers during these meetings.

The registered manager was accessible to people who used the service, their families and carers with support from the senior management team.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service had policies in place for equality and diversity and had systems in place to monitor equality practices. Staff training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights compliance rate was 100%.

The service offered flexible working patterns to staff, for example, to support with caring responsibilities and health issues. Some staff had reduced their hours or worked flexibly to accommodate childcare commitments.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role, such as specialised equipment.

The service 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 act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate

During this assessment we found that governance was embedded into the running of the service. There was a framework of accountability to monitor performance and risk.

There were systems and procedures in place to ensure effective oversight of performance, including staff compliance with training, had access to regular supervision and appraisals and were involved in team meetings. There were routine audits of care records to ensure assessment and treatment of people was compliant with internal procedures, and findings from these audits were discussed with the team. The service completed quarterly reports to external partners and funding bodies, which provided additional monitoring and communication with partners.

The service had an operational risk register in place, which had regular quarterly reviews to update the position of risks and current actions. Managers were aware of the current risks in the service and could describe the actions being taken to mitigate the risks.

The service had contingency plans in place for emergencies, for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

Information governance policy systems included confidentiality of people’s care records and ensured that staff had secure access to care records. Staff had the equipment and information technology they required to complete the work.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Leaders engaged with external stakeholders regularly. Feedback from external partners was positive and highlighted the value of the service provision. For example, a representative from the service joined local authority monthly meetings to share and receive updates including local risk meetings. Through the treatment model there was also strong partnership working with other third sector organisations and business, which increased the people access to therapeutic activities, volunteering and training opportunities.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organization and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

In March 2026, the service received the pride of Swindon award for making a positive and lasting contribution to people and communities across the Borough of Swindon. Gloucester House was recognised for its work supporting men to overcome alcohol or drug dependency. Leaders and staff were proud of this achievement and had shared the learning across the service.

The service had an electronic computer system for people’s care records. Staff worked with information technology colleagues and provided feedback about their experience of using it, which supported the ongoing development and improvement of the service.