Avila 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 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. 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.

A staff member described their understanding of the culture as, “Providing care and support for our tenants [people] and also supporting their independence. Putting them at the centre of the care we provide to them.” There was a ‘no blame’ culture, and the service was open and inclusive, encouraging people to be as independent as possible. The provider’s policy had an aim of, ‘Disabled people feel respected, valued and safe, choose where and how they live and participate freely in social and leisure activities.’ The service had met this aim.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care and support and embodied the culture and value of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff felt listened to by the registered manager and team. A staff member described the registered manager as, “Quite all right and when we need verification about something, we need to know we can contact her easily. She listens and she tries to provide a solution to whatever the problem might be.”

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

The provider had a whistleblowing policy and procedure which set out the steps staff should take if they wished to speak up and raise a concern. In addition, staff meetings enabled staff to air their views. A staff member said, “We have a meeting every month and we have an agenda. People who can’t attend in person can join from home. We have conversations about things we need to know or the things we need to improve on, what is going well and what is not going so well. Suggestions and feedback are welcomed. We can freely say what we have on our minds.”

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 told us they felt valued, supported and respected by the management team. There was a diverse staff team from different cultural backgrounds. A staff member said, “We have different nationalities at Avila House. We’re all different, the way we talk, the kind of food we eat. The manager says if anyone has any concerns, we should always report it, so it is nipped in the bud. It’s about mutual understanding.”

The provider did not always have good governance, as evidenced by the lack of guidance for staff with regard to positive behaviour support.

Systems were generally sufficiently robust to provide effective oversight of the service to drive improvement. A business continuity plan included useful contacts and actions to be taken in the event of an emergency. Care plans were audited to ensure they reflected people’s current needs, except for one person’s care plan which lacked guidance for staff on positive behaviour support. A monthly visit from a representative of the provider included a range of audits that were undertaken, and identified any actions needed.

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 service worked with a range of health and social care professionals, as well as the local authority commissioning team. Collaboration between these partners identified people who might be suitable to live at Avila House, following assessment and talking with people and their families. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments by staff if they were unable to attend independently.

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 and effective practice.

Staff had opportunities for continuous professional development which included access to a range of training, and regular supervision with their line managers. When asked how they supported people with their wellbeing and quality of life, a staff member said, “Person-centred care is tailored and planned according to people’s preferences and how they want to be cared for. That is what Avila House is all about.”