Amphion View Limited

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 changed to 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.

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

This service scored 62 (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 management team and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles.

Although the provider had inclusive leaders who demonstrated understanding of the care context and embodied organisational values, they did not ensure compliance with relevant legislation. For example, they failed to implement and evidence Mental Capacity Assessments (MCAs) and Best Interest decision-making processes in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had a whistle blowing policy and staff were supported to raise concerns and the manager was keen to listen to people and make changes. Staff were confident the management team would take appropriate actions swiftly to ensure people were protected from harm.

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.

Processes were in place which helped to protect the rights of staff under the Equality Act. Risk assessments and any reasonable adjustment measures were used if appropriate. This helped to create a more equitable and inclusive organisation.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The home’s management and leadership required improvement. The provider failed to adhere to some policies to ensure safe and appropriate care. Some legislation in relation to people’s care was not understood or properly implemented. For example, mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation.

There were quality monitoring systems in place, however, these were not always effective. Some areas for improvement we identified during the site visit were not identified as part of the providers quality monitoring systems. For example, people were not always protected from the risk of infection and unmanaged risks in the premises.

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 manager told us they had good relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care. This included commissioners, district nursing team, and the GP service, who undertook weekly ward rounds.

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 management team were proactive in using information from audits, complaints, incidents and safeguarding alerts to improve the service. The managers worked with staff to understand how things went wrong and involved them in finding solutions. Concerns were investigated in a sensitive and confidential way, and lessons were shared and acted on to improve service delivery.