78 Hoylake Crescent

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.

The service was previously in breach of a legal regulation in relation to good governance. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer breaching this regulation.

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.

There was a positive culture at the service. People living there and staff were happy with the service. This was an improvement from our previous assessment. The provider had made changes and managers told us a key to improvements had been involving staff in these changes. The deputy manager told us, “We have been getting staff on board. Ensuring they are part of the vision and the new way of working.” Managers told us the stability of the service was good, with less incidents and people were happier. The registered manager explained, “It is calmer now. This has allowed us to focus on personalised care.”

There were capable and compassionate leaders. The provider had made improvements to the service and managers had taken an active role in reviewing and updating processes to ensure improvements were embedded. The provider was a partnership. Both partners were involved in the day-to-day management of the service, and 1 partner was the registered manager. There was also a deputy manager who worked alongside the partners to carry out audits and to support staff.

There were systems to enable staff and others to speak up when they felt something was wrong. Staff told us they knew what to do if they had concerns. They explained they felt confident speaking up. When something went wrong, managers apologised to people and explained the actions they were taking to prevent this happening again.

There were policies and procedures to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us their individual needs and diversity needs were respected. The provider supported staff with flexible working arrangements.

Since our last assessment, there had been improvements to the governance of the service. Managers had increased the number of audits and checks. They acted when they identified concerns. Managers were visible and spent time working alongside staff. The provider had improved record keeping, ensuring these were accurate, clear and up to date. The provider had plans to improve systems further and digitalise records. There were a range of suitable policies and procedures which reflected legislation and good practice guidance.

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people received joined up support which met their needs. The provider had effective systems of communication with healthcare teams.

There were systems for learning and improvement. Since our last assessment, the provider had made improvements to the safety and quality of the service. They had introduced new processes and had supported staff to understand these. They had also improved the number of checks and audits, included unannounced spot checks during the day and night. Managers told us this had helped to identify when staff were not following correct procedures. They explained they had discussed these with staff to help them understand why procedures were important and that failing to follow these put people at risk. Managers had improved staff access to training and had regular meetings to discuss learning and things that had gone wrong.