Austin Place

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 as 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 culture of the service revolved around empathy and a desire to provide good care to people. There was a strong emphasis from the registered manager on working alongside staff, with mentoring seen as an important part of staff development. The registered manager emphasised the importance of staff demonstrating the ability to listen and showed a clear understanding of each person’s needs, tailoring their approach accordingly. The registered manager was also approachable and open with staff, encouraging them to seek guidance and share concerns.

As a result, this created a positive, supportive culture where staff felt valued and confident in their roles. A staff member told us, “My manger is so good and easy to speak. We are a small team. She will go out on calls to help us. She is the best manager I’ve ever had in my whole employment. I love the residents and when you have a good team it makes the job more enjoyable.”

People were happy with the care the service provided them. They told us, “I’m very happy” and “[Registered manager] provides good care.”

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.

People felt the service was well managed by a registered manager who was receptive and accessible. They told us, “[Registered manager] is the sort of person who wants to make everyone happy”, “[Registered manager[ is involved. I can speak to her” and “[Registered manager] is lovely. I know I could always go to her if needed.”

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and in turn the registered manager felt supported by senior management. They told us, “We have one to one meetings and teams calls weekly. We also have a monthly meeting with all the home care managers. I feel very supported by her. She is very approachable.” Staff told us, “I am treated very well by my manager. She’s a very good manager.”

The registered manager was also registered manager for a second of the provider’s locations, but was competently dividing their time between the 2 whilst management to maintain management oversight. They told us, “I do 3 days 1 week at Austin Place and 2 days at the other location, then the following week I would do 2 days at Austin Place and 3 at the other location. The team leader oversees the service in my absence. There are always carers on site either carry out care calls or in the office. The staff rota shows exactly where I am going to be each day.”

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

Staff had the opportunity to air their views, concerns or suggestions through regular staff meetings. The registered manager told us, “I’m always listening to other people’s views. I give everyone the opportunity to have their own opinion.”

Staff surveys were also a way for staff to be able to speak up anonymously. We saw the results from the most recent survey and found staff were happy working at the service. In response to questions about whether they felt valued, had enough PPE, were confident voicing concerns, were inspired to do their best work and had confidence in line manager, staff had scored the highest score of a ‘5’. One staff member had written, ‘I love my job and have a very good relationship with my manager and the team work very well’.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place and 1 staff member said, “I’m aware of it and I have no problem speaking out at all. I’ve never had to.”

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 provider actively promoted equality and diversity within the staff team through training, ongoing workplace support and inclusive team meetings. They had also developed an anti-racist culture toolkit to further strengthen awareness and good practice among staff. This all supported a more inclusive work environment.

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.

The quality of the service was monitored through governance systems, involving regular audits carried out by both the registered manager and the provider’s district manager. The registered manager completed audits in areas such as medication, health and safety, and care planning, while the district manager undertook an overarching compliance audit.

We noted no actions had been identified in the most recent audits, despite gaps in information within the care plans we reviewed. This meant the provider’s quality assurance processes were not fully effective in identifying and addressing all areas for improvement. We raised the shortfalls in the care plans we reviewed and the registered manager said they would address this.

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 explained that people were largely independent and able to arrange their own links with external professionals and the local area. People were involved in organising their own activities and social opportunities through the in-house residents’ association. Information was shared with everyone via noticeboards and newsletters.

This meant people had choice and control, and they could remain actively involved in their own social lives and connections.

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 registered manager focussed on improving the service by seeking the views of people receiving care. We read from the most recent survey (where people were asked to score areas such as the overall standard of care, attitude and helpfulness of staff, punctuality and management support) that people scored highly.

In addition, 3-monthly spot checks were carried out with staff to identify both positive practice and any areas for improvement, including further training needs. Reflective practice was also encouraged following incidents, accidents and positive events. For example, a medication error was discussed with the staff member involved, refresher training was arranged, and the learning from this was shared with the staff team. This all helped to support continuous learning and development.