Featherton 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

People and their relatives consistently spoke very positively about Featherton House. One person we spoke with told us, “I’d recommend it [Featherton House] to anyone.” A relative told us, “I would recommend the home, it has a lovely feel about it.”

The registered manager and all the staff encouraged and promoted person centred care and treated people with dignity and respect. This was embedded in day-to-day practise and confirmed by people, relatives and staff we spoke with. One person told us, “It’s very safe here, it’s because everyone is so nice and caring.” Another person told us, “Staff are always extremely respectful.”

Staff spoke positively about the culture within the team and told us of things they were most proud of. One staff member told us, “One thing I am proud of is helping to reassure and support people who are anxious or unsettled. Sometimes a calm conversation and taking time to listen can make a significant difference to someone's comfort and wellbeing.” Another staff member told us, “I have cared for certain people right from when they came in, right until the end of their life. Making the last couple of years of their life a bit better wherever I could, and providing palliative care has made me proud.”

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.

We consistently received positive feedback about the registered manager and other senior leaders from people, relatives and staff. People told us, “It’s been the same registered manager for a while. It’s very well managed, [registered manager] is very proactive I think,” and “I know the registered manager, they seem efficient.”

Staff were complimentary of the management team and described them as approachable. One staff member told us, “I feel supported through supervision, training, and being able to ask senior staff for advice whenever I’m unsure about something.” Another staff member told us, “I feel supported and if I have any ideas, they are always welcomed.”

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

Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, and when they did so, they felt listened to. Comments included, “I feel able to raise concerns with the manager as well as the deputy manager if necessary and believe they would be taken seriously,” and “I feel able to talk to both my manager and deputy manager. They are both very understanding and accommodating to needs or concerns.”

There were also opportunities for staff to give feedback through questionnaires and team meetings. However, further work was required to analyse and act on the feedback provided through questionnaires.

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 and respected by the registered manager and senior leaders, they felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. One staff member we spoke with told us, “I find the manager approachable because they communicate well with staff and try to support everyone equally, especially during stressful shifts.”

The provider had a policy in place to ensure staff were treated fairly and had equal opportunities to learn and develop their roles within the organisation. There were fair recruitment processes in place, which helped to protect the rights of staff under the Equality Act.

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

The provider had a range of audits in place to support oversight and governance of the service. However, these systems were not always effective in driving improvement. We found actions identified through audits were not consistently recorded in a clear and structured way. In some cases, it was not specified who was responsible for completing actions or the expected timescales for completion. This reduced accountability and made it difficult to monitor progress.

For example, the provider had not identified the absence of meaningful learning being recorded within the monthly analysis of falls, or the lack of risk assessments addressing environmental concerns identified during the inspection.

A quarterly catering audit completed in March also identified several required improvements, including the need for new containers for dried food storage, labelling of sinks to clarify their purpose, and improved bread storage. On the second day of inspection, we observed that these actions had not been completed. As with other audits, there was a lack of clarity regarding responsibility, timescales, and management follow-up. This meant that identified risks and areas for improvement were not always acted upon in a timely manner. The registered manager was responsive to our feedback and during the inspection period confirmed these actions had been completed.

A monthly ‘first impression’ audit completed in January identified four actions; however, there was no detail regarding who was responsible for completing these actions or when they should be completed. In addition, there was no evidence that the registered manager had followed up to check whether these actions had been addressed.

However, audits relating to people’s care and changes in health demonstrated actions had been taken without delay and follow up action had been taken. For example, monthly weight analysis audits identified actions such as contacting the GP to discuss a person’s weight loss, and prompt action had been taken.

The provider had created an action plan in response to a fire risk assessment; actions had been identified clearly with timescales for completion.

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 registered manager and staff team had established good partnership working with various organisations and external stakeholders to provide positive outcomes for people. One external stakeholder told us, “Staff, [registered] manager and deputy manager are very engaging with our service, they have an accommodating nature when we visit.”

The provider actively promoted community engagement and social inclusion. They had recently organised a charity fundraising event which was open to the local community. People using the service and staff were involved in supporting the event, helping to raise funds for a chosen charity.

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.

The registered manager told us the importance of being open, honest and to learn from incidents and accidents. Reflective discussions were held when things went wrong to help learn from them and prevent recurrence. Safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents were discussed in daily handover meetings.

Throughout the inspection the registered manager was open to feedback and prompt action was taken to address any issues raised.