Beck 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 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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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 service had systems to monitor quality, including a Unit Manager Quality Monitoring Form and a Service Improvement Plan. However, although these covered a range of areas, information was often brief and did not always clearly show how managers identified trends, measured improvement or used findings to make changes. For example, medicine audits recorded checks had been completed but did not always demonstrate which records had been reviewed, what findings had been identified or how any learning had been used to improve practice. This made it difficult to evidence how potential issues were identified and addressed through the service’s governance processes. We highlighted this to the registered manager so they could review their systems and make any improvements needed.

It was not always clear how information from service-level monitoring was used to inform wider provider oversight and quality assurance. Some information requested during the assessment was not available at the time of the site visit and was provided later, before written feedback was given. This information was considered as part of the assessment. However, governance records did not always clearly demonstrate how information from audits and monitoring activities was reviewed at provider level, shared with the service or used to hold the service accountable for improvement. For example, provider audits had been completed, but records did not always show how findings had been shared with the service, what actions had been agreed or how improvements were monitored.

Provider oversight had improved since the previous assessment. However, further work was needed to improve governance systems, provide clearer oversight of service performance and demonstrate how information was used to support continuous improvement.

Safeguarding processes had strengthened and statutory notifications were being submitted as required. The registered manager demonstrated a commitment to improving the service and was open to feedback throughout the assessment. Staff and professionals spoke positively about improvements in leadership, communication and the culture of the service.

The service displayed its assessment rating as required and had a business continuity plan in place to support the service during emergencies.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.