Archived: 182 Bromham Road

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 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 service 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 promoted people’s independence, making their own choices, having control of their lives and supported people to maintain relationships with the people most important to them.

The service 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 and knowledge to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. A relative said, [Registered Manager] is on the ball, and gets things done as quickly as possible, he is good and has known [Person] for about 20 years, that’s good.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.People and their relatives did not raise any concerns about being able to speak up. Staff told us they felt supported and able to raise any concerns they had. A relative said, “We’ve got good communication with the house, any issues we phone [Registered Manager] and have a conversation.”

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff confirmed they were treated with fairness and equality and felt well supported. For example, a staff member confirmed there was equality, support and good teamwork.

Governance systems in the service were not always effective. As highlighted in our report, we had some areas of concern or that were need of improvement that had not been previously identified by the provider. We did not identify people had been impacted by these findings. The provider took prompt action to address our concerns before the end of our assessment.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. We saw evidence of external health professionals being involved in people’s care such as GPs, dentists and opticians.

Although the service had systems in place to monitor quality and inform learning and improvements, these had not always identified areas that needed improvement in line with our findings during this assessment. However, the operations manager regularly visited the service and conducted audits in areas such as health and safety, people’s day to day experience and infection prevention and control.