Menna 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

The registered manager and staff knew people very well and understood the challenges they faced. Support was tailored to meet individual needs. The atmosphere in the service was vibrant and busy. People approached staff for support and there was plenty of laughter and good humour. One member of staff commented; “There is a relaxed and unified vibe.”

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.

Members of the wider management team also knew people living at Menna and were known to staff. A regional director visited regularly, and the registered manager told us they felt very well supported and listened to. Staff commented on the support of the organisation and the sense of belonging to a supportive wider community. One member of staff said, “Although it is a national organisation, we are very much part of it.” The Chief Executive Officer of Salutem visited at least once a year and took time to meet with people and staff.

Managers attended annual conferences with the organisation. This was an opportunity for sharing ideas and good practice and celebrating achievements.

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

Staff told us they had opportunities to speak up and were confident they were listened to. They had regular supervision and staff meetings and were also able to approach managers at any time for support. During the inspection the office door was open throughout the day. The registered manager explained our presence to staff and encouraged them to speak with us if they wanted to.

There had been no complaints, a complaints policy clearly laid out the complaints process. A relative commented; “[Registered manager] is there for support if I need to raise any concerns.”

One person attended a monthly “Salutem Voices” group which was an opportunity to raise ideas and suggestions or any complaints.

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.

Each week the service held a cultural evening when staff would prepare food from their own cultures. The registered manager told us this was an opportunity for people to learn about different cultures and recognise the diverse backgrounds of the staff team.

Staff’s religious beliefs and traditions were respected and the registered manager worked with individual members of staff so they were able to practice their religion faithfully.

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 was a comprehensive programme of audits to review aspects of the service. The registered manager completed internal checks including checks of people’s monies, care plan reviews and medicine audits. In addition, the provider completed regular checks. For example, an audit of staff files had been completed.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to highlight any patterns or trends. Daily handovers were completed to help ensure all staff were aware of any changes in people’s needs.

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.

External agencies told us they had no concerns about the service. Records showed the service had received positive feedback.

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.

The provider was committed to driving improvement in the service. For example, they were introducing active support training across the region. The positive behaviour practitioner told us this would be a whole house approach tailored to the needs of each individual service.