Homebeech

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

Requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service

This service scored 57 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The new management structure were addressing the shortfalls.

The manager and quality manager were both open and transparent throughout the assessment, they shared how over the last few weeks and months they had learnt and developed new ways of working to improve the service. These changes were in the process of being embedded in the service. Staff told us they had started to see positive changes happen in the service. One staff member told us, “All incidents are reported and shared, very open and honest. Staff morale is good”.

The manager led in a compassionate and inclusive way. The provider and manager were visible within the service and led the team by example, this promoted good practices in care. The manager actively sourced support from local authorities and other partners which would be beneficial to the service and development in their role. The provider worked closely with the manager to provide opportunities to develop and gain skills to lead effectively.

The provider promoted a culture where people felt they could speak up and they would be listened to. Staff participated in regular team meetings and supervisions. Staff told us they felt listened to and where they raised concerns they were listened to, and where needed they trusted action would be taken. Staff knew how to raise concerns outside of the service if they needed to do so.

The provider and manager recognised and valued diversity within their workforce. Staff told us they felt they were treated with respect and equality. Staff told us they worked well as a team and always helped and supported each other. The service supported staff who needed to work flexibly, and promoted a positive work, life balance.

The provider’s governance systems were not always effective. Audits were completed monthly by leaders but failed to identify the shortfalls in practices found during our assessment. For example, the environmental and IPC (Infection, Protection Control) procedures were not followed and although the provider had acknowledged these shortfalls, sufficient steps had not been taken at the time. The provider’s systems had also failed to identify that care was not always planned and delivered in line with best practice guidance. For example, the service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting some of the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. (RS,RC,RC). The model of care and setting did not maximise people's choice, control and independence. Homebeech operated a medical model of support and whist the emphasis on health worked well for many people, it fell short of addressing the social needs of younger people, mainly those with a learning disability and or autistic people. The provider had not created an environment or knowledge base which would enable it to meet the guidance RS,RC,RC.

Since the assessment the management team have remained in constant communication and a service delivery plan is now in place and evidence has been provided that the shortfalls identified have a clear plan to be addressed. This includes improved oversight and governance of the service and efforts to ensure the service can work towards meeting the needs of people covered by learning disability legislation.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The provider has invested in the addition of new senior team members including head of quality and a specialist in positive behaviour support. Leaders told us that it is hoped that this will help is ensure the quality of care planning and person-centred care via the new computer system is embedded and develop person centred risk assessments tailored to the people who use the service. The provider has implemented a new online incident reporting system which enables oversight from the senior management team as well as home managers and are able to detail lessons learnt from the incidents and create actions that are to be completed. The provider has put in audit systems that will enable actions to be set and reviewed. This aims to assist managers across the company to share knowledge, learning and practice. The service has implemented a service development plan that is a working document and is updated based on actions set in meetings and audits. However, the provider accepted during the assessment that these are yet to be embedded. They told us it was hoped that with the addition of new members of the leadership team in place, improvements will be forthcoming.