Hourigan House Residential Care Home

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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 provider had a clear management structure, with the registered manager being supported by a deputy manager and a number of care team leaders. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and wider management team. Comments included, “They are open and approachable, and you can say anything to them” and “I feel the home is well managed. They [management] all work as a good team.”

The provider identified good staff practice, which was recognised through employee of the month awards, with the winner receiving a voucher as a thank you. The provider also held a staff awards night, where multiple staff members were recognised for their contributions. The next one was scheduled for Spring 2026.

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

People, relatives and staff stated they would feel comfortable raising any concerns. A relative told us, “The manager is always available to speak to. She is very approachable and friendly.”

The provider had an up to date whistle-blowing policy and procedure in place, which staff had access to. Staff confirmed they knew where to access this and how to report any concerns. One staff member stated, “There is a copy of the policy and procedure in the staff room. We all know what to do. I would go to the manager first, then to the area manager.”

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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 a governance schedule in place, which listed what checks were completed and how often these were done. A range of audits and monitoring processes had been completed to identify any shortfalls in care and help drive improvements. These had been done consistently.

The registered manager understood and demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements, which included informing CQC and other professional bodies of any notifiable events.

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 provider shared lots of examples of how the home worked with, or had made links with the wider community, for the benefit of people living at the home. The home had made links with a number of locals schools, as they were mindful of the importance of inter-generational activities for older people. Children from one school had taken part in a letter writing activity, sending letters to specific people who had been supported to write back, similar to the penfriend process. Other school children visited the home to take part in activities or sing for people. The home had also made links with another local care home, who had visited to play dominoes and have tea and cakes. The aim was to help build peer relationships.

The provider celebrated a number of public holidays and events, with people being involved in preparing for these. For example, prior to the Christmas party, activity sessions had been held where people made decorations and baubles which were used to decorate the home.

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 majority of audits contained action plans, which had been updated to indicate what changes had occurred and improvements made. For those with no attached action plan, it was not clear where any shortfalls identified would be recorded. The registered manager did not currently use an overarching action plan onto which all areas for improvement were logged. They agreed to look into this moving forward, to ensure more effective oversight.

The home utilised a ‘You Said... We Did...’ board to feedback to people and relatives, action which had been taken based on feedback received. People had asked for access to old fashioned confectionery, so an old fashioned sweet shop visited regularly, so people could purchase treats. It had also been requested for the outdoor space to be more usable. A secure outdoor area had been created, which people could spend time in throughout the day.