Kent 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 75 (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.

Changes to how Kent House was being operated, had created a negative culture amongst some of the staff group. This was being proactively addressed by the provider, including the appointment of a new home manager. Processes were used to support staff through the transition. Staff commented, “We are passing the unsettling stage” and “Morale, everyone struggled at first because it's change. I have suggested they [staff] give it a chance to settle and it will be ok. I feel like I've been really looked after. [Provider representative] has been amazing through this time. The support for me has been exceptional.”

Staff at all levels understood equality, diversity, and human rights, and they prioritised safe, high-quality, compassionate care.

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 provider had recently appointed a new home manager, who would be registering with the Care Quality Commission. They were in post at the time of our assessment of Kent House.

Leadership was sustained through safe, effective, and inclusive recruitment and succession planning.

The provider was alert to any examples of a poor culture which may impact on the safety and quality of people’s care and support. For example, investigations were conducted robustly, in a timely manner, with actions taken to mitigate future risks.

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

People were supported to raise any concerns and were able to meet with the management team if required.

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff were given opportunities to provide feedback about the service and their opinion was valued.

The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service and staff. There was consistent dialogue with people who used the service, capturing their views and listening to their experiences, this helped to continuously improve the service they received.

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 were kept up to date with issues affecting the overall service via team meetings and conversations. Additional meetings took place on a regular basis as part of the service’s handover system to ensure consistency of care and support.

There had been an increase in staff meetings and engagement from the provider to support staff through the changes within Kent House. These included, a ‘you said, we did’ report in response to concerns raised by staff. This included, why changes were needed to how Kent House was run, staffing levels, rotas, staff hours and management cover and support available to staff.

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 were clear and effective governance, management, sustainability, and accountability arrangements to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

In November 2024, the provider commissioned an external company to undertake a ‘mock’ CQC inspection at Kent House. Issues were identified in regards to governance and oversight of the service. This resulted in an action plan being implemented to address the deficits. This action plan informed the service improvement plan (SIP). There had been a delay in the implementation of the SIP due to management issues within Kent House. The SIP was now proactively being managed, including the recruitment of a new home manager.

Audits were completed regularly to monitor the service. This enabled any trends to be identified to ensure the service was meeting the requirements and needs of people being supported. Where actions were needed, these had been followed up. For example, care plans and risk assessments being updated and involvement of relevant health and social care professionals. A bi-monthly provider visit was also undertaken, which looked at all aspects of the service. Any actions formed the basis of the home’s on-going service improvement plan.

The service was open, honest, and transparent with people when things went wrong. The management team recognised their responsibilities under the duty of candour requirements and followed the service’s policies and procedures.

The service had notified CQC about any significant events at the service. We use this information to monitor the service and ensure they respond appropriately to keep people safe.

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.

People confirmed their needs were met by staff in partnership with relevant health and social care professionals.

The provider and their management team were positive about their links with local partners and health and social care teams. They expressed an open positive attitude to receiving support and understood how and where they could access support.

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. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Opportunities to learn from all incidents were taken and learning was shared across the organisation. People who received support were actively involved in the service and benefitted from the learning culture and continuous improvement service delivery.

Staff were supported to develop and enhance their skills continuously, with opportunity for open discussion and further training. For example, leadership skills training for senior carers was booked for November 2025.

The provider and their management team worked with other services, including the local authority. They accessed best practice learning resources and kept up to date with changes in the social care system.