Weston Favell Houses

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.

The provider had a clear vision and set of values, including accountable, safe, partners, integrity, respect and exceeding expectations. A staff member told us they worked for, “A good company,” with “Good values.” Other staff told us, “They are caring,” “It is a very supportive team environment,” and “I enjoy coming to work every day.”

We found leaders and managers had embedded a person-centred culture where all teams, regardless of their function in the organisation, were working together to deliver the same vision and values. A person told us, “They [staff] give me skills to lead a more successful life."

Relatives told us, “Staff and residents seem happy,” “I would recommend the organisation because staff care and are well trained in brain injury,” and “I think the organisation is well managed because residents are well supported and staff understand them”.

The provider listened to and involved staff through their annual satisfaction survey. This included an analysis of findings and where there were areas for improvement, actions had been identified. There were regular staff newsletters that focused on local updates, but also those across all the providers’ services.

Although the service was registered to provide nursing care there was not a nurse at the service 24 hours a day, but people always had access to a nurse through the provider’s on-call processes. This meant people did not rely on a clinical practitioner and this had a positive impact on people’s independence.

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 feedback about the registered manager from staff, people and their relatives was positive, and their leadership approach was reflected in the service. Staff told us the registered manager was, “Fantastic and approachable,” “The best manager I’ve worked with,” who, “Always has time for you.”

People told us the registered manager was, “Brilliant,” “Always available,” and “A good manager.” Relative feedback also reflected that of people and staff. Relatives said, “[registered manager] is very responsive as a manager. Will always ring me back,” “[registered manager] is the manager, and [they are] very approachable,” and “I would feel comfortable talking to [registered manager] if there was a problem.”

Leaders from the provider were well known by staff and people accessing the service. We found senior leaders who were not involved in the day-to-day running of the service knew people and their support needs well. For example, we observed and were told by people that the manager of clinical quality and excellence would support people to take part in social activities.

Leaders were capable, compassionate and inclusive and this had a positive effect on staff and people living at the service. Staff told us leaders, “Genuinely care,” and “The support I get from managers is amazing.”

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

The provider had a whistleblowing policy that included appropriate signposting to internal and external reporting mechanisms.

There was a member of the senior leadership team identified as the whistleblowing champion and a member of the quality team acted as the freedom to speak up guardian. Both people were known to staff we spoke with during the assessment. However, staff also told us they were able to approach the registered manager with any concerns and that the clinical quality and excellence manager was approachable and a visible presence in the service.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns without fear of reprisals.

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 completed equality and diversity training. We found staff were positive about working at the service and felt they were treated with respect.

Staff were inducted to their job role and there was a clear pathway for everyone within their job role to enable them to develop and progress if they wished. The manager told us they had commenced their employment with the provider as a support worker had now progressed to become the registered manager.

The registered manager and staff told us about situations where reasonable adjustments had been made for staff. For example, changes to working hours. This meant staff felt valued and empowered to bring their whole selves to work.

The provider did not always identify and act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes to ensure good governance.

The provider had a schedule of governance audits that were completed throughout the year and was committed to promoting good governance. For example, world quality week was promoted in the service and people and teams encouraged to consider how ‘quality grows when we think differently’.

The quality team completed regular audits of the service, and the provider arranged an annual mock inspection. Although the provider had identified many of the areas of improvement we found during our assessment, and actions had been established on the central action plan, not all areas for improvement had been found by the provider’s audits. For example, care plan audits had not identified all the areas for improvement we found.

The provider was receptive to our feedback during our assessment and shared plans to address improvements. Although there was a need to strengthen some governance processes, and implement improvements, we were assured work was underway before the assessment concluded.

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 last local authority monitoring of the service was completed in September 2025. The provider showed us a copy of their report that found them compliant with the contract standards with an excellent in 6 of the standards and good in another.

The provider told us they attended local authority forums and were a member of the Northamptonshire Association of CQC Registered Care Providers (NORARCH).

Leaders also told us about local partnerships with a local community-based education service called ‘Workbridge’ and the ‘Northampton Saints Foundation’ who use the power of sport and values of rugby to deliver a monthly accessible session for people using the service.

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 provider, managers and staff recognised the importance of learning lessons from incidents, audits and feedback, as an opportunity to improve the service and people’s quality of life. The registered manager and manager of clinical quality and excellence demonstrated a commitment to learning, improvement and innovation and this was evident across the whole team.

A performance dashboard had been developed to provide increased oversight and monitoring of the service and was continuing to be developed. A central action plan was used to track the outcome of internal and external audits, and this was overseen by the quality team.

The provider had a lessons learnt newsletter that was shared with all staff and demonstrated the provider’s commitment to learning, improvement and innovation. For example, in one newsletter there was a focus on helping staff to understand CQC guidance in relation to Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture.

The provider had been nominated for several national awards for their innovation and commitment to social care. For example, at the Stars of Social Care Awards 2025, the provider won the Complex Care Award, and the performance director was highly commended in the category of Outstanding Director.

The provider recognised the importance of valuing people internally and we saw multiple nominations for the provider’s internal awards. For example, Manager of the Year.