Henning Hall

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. People and their relatives knew the registered manager and felt able to raise any issues with them. One person told us the registered manager had been very receptive to some ideas they had discussed to help improve aspects of the service. Staff told us they felt supported and able to raise any concerns should they need to.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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 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 range of quality monitoring processes in place, which had identified areas for ongoing improvement. We found some best interest decisions made for people, were not always recorded where required. We were informed this was a recording issue, due to information needing to be transferred from paper to the electronic system. The provider had identified the need to ensure records were accurate and up to date and had added this task to the home’s action development plan. The registered manager had good oversight and knew the people who lived at the service well. They were clear about their focus, including the development of activities for people. We identified some staff were not as engaged as others, this was an area the registered manager was aware of and addressing. Some staff did not speak English as their first language and following our feedback, the registered manager strengthened systems, to ensure records were more robust relating to potential risks and how these were managed.

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

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. The provider had introduced a new electronic recording system, which enabled various reports and analysis to be undertaken to support the management of the service. The registered manager was focused on learning and improvement. The provider undertook surveys with people and staff to help improve the service. A relative told us relatives’ meetings were held, which supported two- way communication and enabled people to provide feedback and suggestions. One person living at the service had been asked to act as a representative for people, to help with service development.