Hepworth 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 improved in the areas of shared vision, strategy and culture. Since our last inspection we found safeguarding concerns were identified and reported, accidents and incidents were reviewed and investigated. This meant the service now had a positive listening culture. A relative said, “There have definitely been improvements there and the team seem to be going above and beyond to get it back on track. It’s not an easy job.”

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. There had been a change in management since our last inspection, and a new manager was in the process of applying to become the Registered Manager. However, the provider had made effective interim arrangements by engaging with an external consultant and deploying an experienced interim manager. We found this had a positive impact on the service and the service had improved. A staff member told us the nominated individual is, “supportive, visible and accessible.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. All staff we spoke with told us they felt able to raise concerns. A staff member told us, “I’d report (concerns) to the manager, if I can talk to the person involved and resident I would. We need to prevent harm to residents.”

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 we spoke with did not raise any concerns about equality, diversity and inclusion.

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 provider had improved their governance systems. For example, there was a regular schedule of quality assurance checks and audits that were undertaken such as those related to incidents and accidents, wounds, infection prevention and control and environmental checks. This promoted the quality and safety of care for people.
 

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. For example, following a person recently experiencing a fall that needed medical intervention, they had shared this information with the local authority and CQC. A relative said, “I can’t fault the staff. They certainly now seem calmer, more cohesive as a team.”

We found the provider had improved on their systems that promoted on their continuous learning. This had led to improvement at Hepworth House. Where actions were identified via the providers governance arrangements, the provider produced action plans which were progressed and regularly reviewed. Additionally, the service had a live service improvement plan. This promoted continuous improvement.