Kingswood 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. The provider had worked to improve leadership and stability at the service. A permanent registered manager and deputy manager were in place and had worked with staff to achieve improvements. Records evidenced that staff received regular guidance and supervision to support them in their roles, and staff feedback was positive. Staff told us, “The management team is supportive, which helps us staff to work effectively” and “There is good communication during handovers, team meetings and supervision.”

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. The provider had provided resources to the service to improve organisation and leadership. A permanent management team had brought stability and improved staff support and effectiveness. Feedback from people, their relatives and staff in relation to leadership at the service was positive. A person told us “[Registered Manager] is approachable and you can tell them what you are thinking.” A relative told us, “I feel [Registered Manager] thinks the residents are the most important thing.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff spoke positively about their experiences of the services, line management and their ability to raise concerns. Staff told us, “I feel comfortable raising concerns, sharing ideas and asking for guidance.”

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 recruitment was managed by a centralised team who assessed application based on merit. Staff told us they felt supported and listened. Staff did not raise concerns regarding equality, diversity or inclusion.

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. Clear roles and responsibilities were in place which ensured regular governance and auditing was taking place. Standards in training, staff support, supervision and record keeping had improved at the service and records evidenced where issues were identified, these were addressed. For example, a recent incident record was reviewed which did not contain sufficient detail. Managers at the service had implemented a process in which all incident records were reviewed by managers and staff were supported to learn and improve from errors or omissions.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. During the inspection improvements were found across the service. However, feedback from professionals highlighted that some information sharing was not always completed in a timely manner. A professional told us, “Information I share with the service is followed up promptly, but I have not always been contacted proactively by the service, for example recent information was not shared with me.”

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. The management team demonstrated a commitment to service improvement and had implemented several initiatives to improve record keeping, staff support, peoples experience and meaningful use of people and relative feedback. Staff were supported to reflect on accidents and incidents and were encouraged to put forward their suggestions for improvement. Where managers identified areas for improvement plans were in place to address these. Managers recognised there had been issues with information sharing and had demonstrated a commitment to continued work in this area.