Ewart 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. The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led.

Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer rated requires improvement. The provider had taken action to improve the effectiveness of their audits and checks.

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 service had a shared vision, strategy, and culture. Values of the organisation were embedded into the culture of the service, through team meetings, staff supervisions and observed practice.

Staff undertook a range of training and had used this to help ensure procedures were followed to provide people with good quality care. There was regular communication between staff so that they could share their experiences and learn from one another. Systems and processes had been designed in line with the service’s vision and values and focused on people and meeting their individual needs. Managers used supervision and staff team meetings to promote how the service’s vision and values should be achieved through working practices.

Management had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively. Staff told us management were knowledgeable and provided them with the support they needed to do their job effectively. A member of staff said, “[The registered manager] is very responsive. [They] seem competent.” Another member of staff told us, “The new manager is very honest. I can approach [them] openly.”

There was an organisational structure in place and staff understood their roles, responsibilities and contributions to the service. The registered manager was supported by the operations manager. Management were responsive when things went wrong and took action to make improvements. Throughout our assessment of the service, management and staff we spoke with acted with openness, integrity and transparency.

There was open and ongoing communication between the management team and staff. Regular meetings between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss people’s individual support needs and the running of the service.

Feedback obtained about the registered manager was positive. A person said, “[The new manager seems very experienced, [they] started as a carer and has worked their way up and they are very knowledgeable. If you ask [the registered manager] something they will find out and will get back to me.” A relative said, “Now this new [registered manager] has come, [they are] marvellous and I have great faith in [them].”

The service was focused on supporting people to lead fulfilling and active lives as members of their communities.

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

Speaking up procedures were in place and accessible to staff. Details of these procedures were shared with staff during their induction, team meetings and supervision sessions. Information was also displayed on noticeboards in the office. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident the management would listen to them and respond. Management supported people to assert their rights as tenants, for example, ensuring the housing association made repairs to their home in a reasonable timeframe.

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff.

Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up.

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

Speaking up procedures were in place and accessible to staff. Details of these procedures were shared with staff during their induction, team meetings and supervision sessions. Information was also displayed on noticeboards in the office. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident the management would listen to them and respond. Management supported people to assert their rights as tenants, for example, ensuring the housing association made repairs to their home in a reasonable timeframe.

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff.

Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality care and support. They acted on information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this with others when appropriate.

Our previous inspection found that audits were in place but there were occasions where these failed to effectively identify shortfalls. During this assessment, we found the service had reviewed their audits and these were now comprehensive and focused on identifying issues and taking action to make improvements.

Management carried out various comprehensive checks and audits. These included a monthly walkaround audit carried out by the registered manager. The audit checked the running and efficiency of the service to help identify deficiencies and make improvements. This audit checked areas such as infection control, medicines management, safeguarding and people’s feedback. The operations manager carried out a further audit as a countercheck on a quarterly basis. The head office quality assurance team carried out an in-depth yearly audit looking at various aspects of the running of the service and then put an action plan in place to help drive improvements within specific timescales.

Management understood and demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements. They also understood their responsibility to provide honest information, suitable support and to apply duty of candour where appropriate.

The service focused on continuous learning and positive improvements to the running of the service. The culture within the service promoted honesty and learning from mistakes and there was a clear understanding of the need to be open in the event of anything going wrong. Feedback was shared with people and staff to ensure lessons were learnt.

Management had established links with organisations representing people with specific conditions, ensuring they had current information on best practice for supporting people.

Staff were supported to learn and improve in their role, through training, supervision and staff meetings. Arrangements were in place to obtain feedback from people and staff to help the service learn and improve.

The service focused on continuous learning and positive improvements to the running of the service. The culture within the service promoted honesty and learning from mistakes and there was a clear understanding of the need to be open in the event of anything going wrong. Feedback was shared with people and staff to ensure lessons were learnt.

Management had established links with organisations representing people with specific conditions, ensuring they had current information on best practice for supporting people.

Staff were supported to learn and improve in their role, through training, supervision and staff meetings. Arrangements were in place to obtain feedback from people and staff to help the service learn and improve.