Dauntsey 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 requires improvement. 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 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.

Relatives were positive about the culture created by the management team. Comments included, “The constructive, positive culture and ethos of Dauntsey House reflects the high quality of the leadership that [managers] demonstrate.” Staff told us the registered manager had a vision of providing high quality, person-centred care and put this into practice in the way they worked.

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 service had a manager who is registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager held a level 5 management of social care qualification and was in the process of completing a post graduate level management qualification. People and relatives told us they knew who the registered manager was and were confident they would resolve any problems raised with them. People felt the service was well managed. Staff told us the registered manager was open and approachable, and said they had made a lot of improvements to the service since they had been in post. One member of staff told us, “She is a good manager because she cares and has residents’ best interests at heart.”

We received positive feedback from health and social care professionals about the capability of the registered manager. Comments included, “The organisation appears to be well led by [the registered manager], and the team beneath her appear to be well motivated and kind” and “The [registered] manager put the customer at the heart of what was required and was most supportive and caring.”

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

Staff told us there were effective systems for them to raise any concerns and they felt confident action would be taken if they used them. Information about how to raise concerns was displayed in staff areas of the building. Records demonstrated staff were encouraged to raise any concerns during team meetings and individual meetings with their supervisor, which were followed up.

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 registered manager told us they had supported staff to make reasonable adjustments to their working patterns where needed, to support them to remain at work. Staff told us they felt very well supported by the management team.

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.

At the last inspection we identified shortfalls in the governance systems in the service. At this inspection we found this had improved. The provider now had a governance system, which included a schedule of audits and feedback from people about how the service was operating. The registered manager used the outcome of these audits to develop action plans to address any shortfalls that were identified. The action plans included staff responsible for taking the action and a timescale for completion. The plans were regularly reviewed with the provider to ensure actions had been completed.

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 told us they worked with a range of other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care. Relatives gave examples of the service working in partnership with other agencies, including community and specialist nurses, to help meet people’s needs. Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about their experience of working with the service to meet people’s needs.

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.

Systems for monitoring standards of care were used to identify areas of improvement and lessons learned. This included regular audits and quality assurance checks. The registered manager was a member of trade organisations and management forums to share learning from incidents in other services.