Eden 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 68 (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 service had a positive, shared culture that supported people to lead their lives as they wished. People described the home as comfortable and homely, and staff consistently promoted a sense of ownership and belonging. The provider emphasised doing things ‘with, not for’ people, supporting independence and meaningful relationships. People felt settled and involved in daily life. One person said, “It’s just like home.” Staff and people took part together in routines such as meals, household tasks and planning day-to-day activities. The provider used day-to-day interactions to encourage thinking and decision-making. They told us, “I like to get [people] to think for themselves.”

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.

Leadership was visible, compassionate and highly valued by staff and people. Staff described the manager as supportive and they felt appreciated. One staff member said, “Quite often, [Name] says thank you.” People and staff had developed long-standing, trusting relationships with the provider. One person told us, “He’s good, he knows what he is doing.”

The provider kept in regular contact with the service and remained committed to supporting both staff and people.

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

Staff and people were encouraged to express concerns and ideas openly. The service had a ‘What If’ policy that staff were familiar with. This was used to prompt and encourage staff to voice concerns. Staff told us the atmosphere was positive. One staff member described an open culture where feedback was constructively shared. They said, “We all tend to tell each other.” Concerns raised externally were also taken seriously. The provider shared an example which led to discussions and reassurance about people’s safe independence.

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 service promoted fairness and flexibility for staff, who were positive about their working conditions. Staff felt well supported. One staff member said, “Best thing: flexibility, work-life balance.” The team described working well together and supporting each other with shift swaps and changes.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance processes did not consistently ensure up-to-date oversight recording. Although some systems were in place, audits such as care plan and daily records audits were not current. The provider acknowledged that some paperwork had not been routinely reviewed, and some risk assessments were outdated. However, the provider and senior staff member maintained strong day-to-day oversight, with regular medication counts, diary entries that captured routine checks, and clear household safety documentation. The provider ensured equipment safety checks and fire safety processes were up to date. Despite these strengths, improvements were needed to ensure governance frameworks were fully embedded and sustainable. We discussed this with the provider who took immediate action to review these areas.

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 service nurtured strong links with the local community. People were supported to participate in volunteering, social groups, and community activities. One person who assisted others with learning disabilities told us, “I go to [voluntary group] every week.” Another person volunteered at a dementia café and proudly showed their Queen’s Award badge. Staff encouraged people to maintain friendships and community connections, ensuring people had fulfilling and varied opportunities outside the home.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. However, they encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The service demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt. Staff described how they reviewed new information and altered their practice. One staff member said, “We’re always trying different things, going out places.” The provider implemented changes to support people’s independence by creating individual solutions for people’s needs. However, robust record keeping required improvement, to ensure it did not impact on the service’s ability to sustain improvement.