Central 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 inspection for this 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 71 (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 that supported people to receive safe and compassionate care. Leaders promoted a consistent set of expectations and values, and people and relatives generally experienced the service as reliable and supportive. Feedback demonstrated that staff were respectful and caring, and most people felt safe and confident in the support they received. Most relatives described the care as “very good”, “efficient” and “very satisfactory”, which reflected a culture centred around meeting people’s needs.

Relatives reported carers were polite and responsive, and several said they would recommend the service based on the care their family member received. Where concerns were raised by people, these did not undermine the wider culture, as people still felt care was safe and reliable.

Staff worked in a way that aligned with the organisation’s values of safety, quality and compassion. Staff were very positive about the culture and leadership within the service. They felt valued and listened to and were encouraged in their development.

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.People and relatives consistently described the management team as approachable, supportive and responsive. Staff said the office was always available when support was needed. People felt the registered manager maintained appropriate communication and addressed concerns effectively. This reflected visible and accessible leadership that promoted confidence and trust.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.The provider encouraged openness, transparency and a safe environment for staff and people to raise concerns. They promoted a culture for staff to feel confident speaking up. Staff confirmed they could escalate safeguarding, quality or practice issues through established processes, and they felt listened to.

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 felt they were treated fairly by the registered manager and worked well with the wider team.Staff told us they were treated fairly and felt included. They completed training in equality and diversity and had an understanding of what it meant. Recruitment and disciplinary processes were in place and ensured there was no disadvantage based on staff's specific protected equality characteristics. The provider had processes to ensure an inclusive workplace where staff were treated and supported as individuals.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance.

Senior staff monitored staff using a new electronic call monitoring system. We reviewed completed staff calls and schedules and found that were some issues of lateness and calls not being logged correctly by staff. The registered manager told us they audit call logs regularly and address discrepancies through supervision and direct feedback to improve practice. However, there were a high number of calls that were not logged correctly because staff either did not log in or log out at the right times. This meant call monitoring processes were not effectively identifying and investigating these issues immediately. We also noted that risk assessments and care plans lacked detail and could be further developed and personalised.

The management team acknowledged these as areas for improvement and provided assurance that staff performance was monitored. The registered manager took action to investigate minor discrepancies that we found with call times, for example, how and when staff logged in and out of calls. Feedback from staff, people and relatives was mostly positive about how visits were planned and delivered. There was no evidence people in the service had come to any harm.

There was regular oversight of the service through spot checks, monthly supervision, audits and ongoing communication with relatives. People and families consistently said management checked in regularly, reviewed care plans and ensured needs were being met. There was an out of hours procedure and members of the management team were available on call 24 hours a day.

The registered manager, who was also the director, was supported by senior staff such as the field care supervisor and care coordinator, who helped monitor the service. Staff were encouraged to develop and make improvements in their work where necessary. The registered manager demonstrated regular spot checks, oversight and contact with people receiving care. They monitored risk, reviewed incidents and adapted care when needs changed. required. The governance processes promoted sustainability and accountability. Audits of medicine records, care logs and training were carried out by the registered manager to check that staff were completing them accurately.

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.

The provider worked effectively with families and external professionals. Relatives confirmed the service liaised with them regularly, adjusted care times when needed and coordinated with health professionals when additional support was required. Staff reported working well with external professionals such as GPs, district nurses and pharmacies. People receiving care benefited from these collaborative approaches. The service received positive feedback from partners about the care people received.

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 demonstrated a positive approach to learning and improvement. Staff received spot checks, regular supervision and refresher training. Feedback showed the provider addressed performance issues promptly and used feedback from people and relatives to review practice.

The registered manager acknowledged there were some oversights with care plans and call monitoring that we had identified, which was important to ensure there was continuous development and improvement in the service.The provider responded constructively to concerns, adapted care when needs changed and made improvements identified through feedback. Relatives highlighted the service’s willingness to undertake additional duties, respond flexibly and adapt routines to support complex needs. This indicated a culture of continuous improvement.