Bowes 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.

Staff discussed the service’s vision and culture with us. Staff described the management team as approachable and willing to listen, and said they felt supported. They reported that things had improved following a difficult few months and that the home was moving in a positive direction. The registered manager and staff understood and supported the cultural and spiritual needs of people and staff.

People were treated equally, and their individual needs were met in line with their preferences. The management team knew people well and worked alongside staff to support and promote good practice. All staff who spoke with us expressed positive views about, and pride in, the care they provided.

The provider used individual staff supervision and team meetings to remind staff of the organisation’s core values and principles.

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 registered manager provided effective and visible leadership. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. They demonstrated their commitment and dedication to achieving the best possible outcomes for people throughout the inspection.

The registered manager was working closely with staff to ensure people received safe, person-centred care. Staff described the registered manager as approachable, supportive and willing to listen. One staff member told us, “Any concerns, their door is always open and she does come out and meet us all, she attends handovers and is just visible.” Staff told us they felt respected and valued by the organisation and the registered manager. Comments included, “The service takes care of us, they listen,” and “I haven’t been here long but really nice place to work, knowledgeable, a good manager, wants to improve things and genuinely cares.”

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

The provider and manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. The duty of candour requires providers to be open and honest when untoward events occur.

We received notifications as required. During our assessment we found that the management team were open and transparent. They acknowledged when things had gone wrong and demonstrated the work they had undertaken in response to make improvements.

The provider had up-to-date whistleblowing policies and procedures which were in line with current guidance. Staff felt able to voice their views and concerns. They were aware of the whistleblowing policy and felt able to raise concerns and be listened to. People and their relatives confirmed they knew how to complain, and a copy of the complaints policy was available in the home and on the service website. Relatives told us they would make a complaint if necessary but would speak with staff first. The service maintained a record of complaints, including details of each complaint and the response provided. We saw that complaints had been responded to and action taken as necessary.

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.

The wellbeing of staff was regularly discussed to ensure that staff were confident and comfortable in their role. Staff confirmed that their supervisions always included asking about their health and well-being. The provider had procedures in place to promote staff well-being and worked to provide flexible working conditions if required. There were measures in place to monitor, maintain and promote good mental well-being across the staff group. There was a formal recruitment process and equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place to guide equitable and fair recruitment and selection procedures. Staff were encouraged to undertake training in equality and diversity.

The provider and staff were proud to be inclusive and supported both staff and people that used the service. The registered manager said the staff team was multicultural and everyone was respectful of each other.
Staff felt they were treated as individuals and their needs were taken into consideration, such as shift times being re-arranged to fit in with family commitments if required.

The provider used clear roles, responsibilities, accountability and governance systems to deliver good-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best available risk, performance and outcome information, sharing it securely when appropriate.

Quality assurance systems effectively supported service improvements. The management team worked to ensure robust oversight and effective governance.

Computerised systems assessed, monitored and improved service quality and safety. Regular governance meetings supported effective monitoring and early identification of trends and concerns. Managers were aware of improvements needed and those were underway.

Staff described their responsibilities, how they managed risks and how they reported concerns. Managers and staff understood their roles, quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements. Checks and audits monitored quality and safety, with action taken where improvements were identified.

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.

People were supported to receive care from a variety of health care professionals and services. These included the Speech and Language (SALT) team, occupational health, a chiropodist, the local GP surgery and pharmacy as well as the tissue viability nursing team.

Professionals we spoke with who worked alongside the service spoke positively about the communication and responsiveness of the team.

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.

Continuous learning was embedded in many systems monitoring care safety and quality. People, their loved ones and staff could raise concerns and suggest improvements. Meeting minutes showed staff shared and discussed lessons learned. Spot checks and competency checks assessed whether learning opportunities were effective and meaningful.