Broughton House and College

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 outstanding. 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.

Staff, relatives and professionals consistently described a positive and person-centred culture. Staff spoke positively about the support provided by leaders and demonstrated an understanding of the service's values and their role in promoting people's rights, wellbeing, choice and quality of life.

The culture of the service reflected the principles of person-centred care, with people supported to maintain relationships, access their community and participate in activities that were important to them. Staff demonstrated a commitment to supporting people in ways that reflected their individual needs and preferences.

Staff described an open and supportive culture where feedback, discussion and reflection were encouraged. Relative feedback was positive regarding communication, involvement and responsiveness.

Leaders were visible, approachable and actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service. Staff consistently spoke positively about the support they received and described managers as accessible, responsive and willing to provide guidance when required.

The wider leadership team maintained oversight of the service and worked alongside leaders to support service development, respond to changing needs and address concerns when they arose. Staff, relatives and professionals were positive about communication with the leadership team and felt concerns, requests and feedback were responded to appropriately.

Staff described an open culture where they felt able to raise concerns, seek advice and provide feedback. Staff were aware of the processes available to raise concerns and felt comfortable approaching leaders when issues arose.

Leaders encouraged open communication and staff said they felt listened to and supported when sharing concerns, suggestions or ideas for improvement. Staff were confident that concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon appropriately.

Whistleblowing and speaking up arrangements were available, and staff demonstrated an understanding of how concerns could be raised through both internal and external routes.

Staff described an inclusive and supportive working environment and spoke positively about relationships within the staff team. Staff felt they were treated fairly, valued in their roles and able to raise concerns or seek support when needed.

Policies and procedures were in place to support equality, diversity and inclusion within the workforce. Staff had access to training and guidance relating to equality, diversity, human rights and respectful working practices, and leaders demonstrated an awareness of the importance of maintaining an inclusive culture.

Staff feedback indicated they felt listened to and respected, and there was no concerns relating to bullying, discrimination or exclusion within the workforce.

Governance systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including audits and management monitoring processes. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities, and feedback from staff, relatives and professionals was positive regarding the day-to-day management of the service.

Leaders had oversight of key areas of the service and systems were in place to identify concerns, monitor performance and support service improvement.

However, governance records did not always demonstrate the level of management scrutiny applied following incidents. Whilst incidents were reviewed, it was not always clear how leaders had assured themselves that support approaches and risk management arrangements remained appropriate for the individual.

Some staff felt near misses were not consistently recorded or reviewed. This limited assurance that governance systems captured all opportunities to identify patterns, strengthen preventative actions and reduce the risk of future incidents.

Opportunities remained to strengthen governance oversight to provide assurance that support arrangements continued to reflect people's current needs and recognised best practice. Leaders had recognised this and were taking steps to strengthen management scrutiny, quality assurance and review processes to improve oversight and assurance across the service.

Leaders and staff worked collaboratively with families, advocates, commissioners and healthcare professionals to help ensure people received coordinated support. Feedback from professionals was positive regarding communication and partnership working, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of when additional support or specialist involvement was required.

People were supported to access and maintain links within their local community, including activities, services and opportunities that were important to them. Staff worked alongside external organisations and professionals to support positive experiences and outcomes for people.

Leaders demonstrated openness to external advice and challenges and worked with partner organisations to support continuity of care, health and wellbeing and service improvement.

Leaders demonstrated a commitment to improvement and were open to feedback. Staff described opportunities to raise suggestions and contribute ideas, and leaders responded positively to feedback and discussion.

Systems were in place to support service development, including audits, reviews and quality assurance processes. Leaders recognised opportunities to strengthen oversight and were taking steps to improve management scrutiny, review processes and quality assurance arrangements across the service.