Howson Care Centre

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 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.

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.

The service embedded a friendly, open and transparent culture. The atmosphere at the service was relaxed and welcoming. Staff understood their roles and deployment was structured and well organised to ensure effective service delivery. Most staff embodied the service values; they were polite, caring and responsive. Staff spoke positively about the culture at the service. One staff member said, “We are working as a true team.”

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 and deputy manager worked together effectively to ensure consistent, reliable and competent leadership at the service. They were proactive and responsive to people’s changing needs and supported workforce wellbeing. One staff member said, “Leaders are visible. There is an open-door policy in place. They act quickly to resolve stuff. They have got our back.”

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

People and staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and believed they would be listened to and acted on. Care staff understood how and when to escalate concerns. The providers policy supported an effective speaking up culture.

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 spoke positively about the service and told us they felt valued by the provider. Staff told us they felt the provider treated staff fairly. One staff member said, “Leaders will walk round once a day to check all areas are ok, they say well done to us. We get breaks and there is a staff room and other places we can go to get away from things if needed.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and mostly good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. However, quality assurance processes had not identified missing information within some care plans and assessment tools.

A range of quality assurance processes and oversight processes were in place that were mostly effective at identifying shortfalls and driving service improvements. For example, monitoring tools for staff training and deprivation of liberty safeguards were in place. The provider maintained effective oversight of the service through regular engagement with the leadership team, reviewing oversight and auditing documentation, and by maintaining a physical presence at the service. However, auditing processes had not identified missing information in a person’s care plans regarding their repositioning regime, shortfalls in people’s positive behaviour care planning, or key areas impacting falls risk assessments. This meant the provider could not be fully assured that quality assurance processes were always being used effectively to drive service improvements.

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 service worked effectively with partner agencies to ensure people received care appropriate for their needs. This included engaging with healthcare professionals and working with commissioners to ensure people received timely care and support.

Following a complaint, the provider worked closely with citizens within the local community to support understanding and trust. This enabled people using the service to maintain safe access to their local communities.

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.

The provider adopted a positive improvement culture into the service through continuous learning. This included the commission of external agencies to complete mock regulatory inspections, health and safety audits, and the support of professional consultants. This information and support was used to drive continuous development and to ensure people received a good quality service.