Magic 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 remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. Under this key question, we found a repeated breach of regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff described the culture as “good”, “promoting growth and development” and “team effort”. Staff maintained a close working relationship with their line managers and senior managers, contributed to making decisions about the daily running of the service, and felt managers listened to their feedback. A scheme manager told us, “I’m having the support that I need, I have the freedom to express myself. I can disagree with [senior manager]. I can brush elbows with the director. I don't feel intimidated. Staff are well taken care of.” Comments from other staff included, “We are team players, managers are willing to listen” and “They have an open culture.”

Staff attended regular meetings where they had the opportunity to discuss issues related to the service and the people using it, raise concerns and provide feedback. A local manager and a regional manager oversaw each scheme. This ensured staff had adequate support. Managers also met regularly to discuss management issues. Staff received training in equality and diversity which helped foster a positive and inclusive culture within the organisation.

Staff told us they received adequate support and guidance from managers. They also told us they were able to request for additional training to help them develop their skills. Comments included, “I can contact senior management at any time”, “Quite good support from above”, “They help staff to grow” and “[Area manager] visits every week.”

Leaders we spoke with demonstrated knowledge and confidence in the undertaking of their roles. They were visible at their designated services and easily reachable. Staff and leaders were responsive to our queries and engaged positively throughout the assessment and prior to that. However, although managers engaged among themselves and with senior management regularly, we found a lack of consistency and effective coordination across processes which led to shortfalls in risk management. For example, the contents and reliability of care plans and risk assessments varied from scheme to scheme which meant, although people had different needs, the processes through which their needs and risks were managed were inconsistent. This could potentially impact the quality of care people received. Also, where gaps in training were identified through internal audits, managers/senior managers did not always take actions to ensure compliance was achieved in a timely manner.

Staff knew their responsibility to raise concerns and felt safe to do so. They also felt managers were willing to take their feedback onboard and act upon it. Staff we spoke with told us they were “listened to” by their managers. A staff member told us, “If I find something unsafe, I can always report to the manager, head office or the police.”

Policies and procedures offered guidance to staff on the importance of speaking up and the support arrangements in place to facilitate this. Staff and leaders understood their duty to inform people and their representatives when things went wrong.

Staff spoke positively about their experience of working at the service. They told us, “It’s good working here” and “Feel at home with Magic Life.” The registered manager spoke to us about how they advertised jobs locally and fair pay for staff.

Flexible arrangements enabled staff to work across different regions/schemes, depending on business needs. Staff who were willing to progress in their career and demonstrated the right qualities had promotion opportunities within the service.

Staff told us there was a clear management structure for accessing support within the service, and they were fully aware of their roles and responsibilities. Staff also spoke to us about the numerous existing quality assurance and risk management systems. Feedback included, “Management is very welcoming, friendly and helpful”, “Senior management does spot checks” and “[Quality assurance manager] audits the service, they are concerned about staff as well. They talk to us.” The registered manager told us they had recently recruited an additional staff member to support the quality assurance manager in their role and ultimately improve their quality assurance systems.

Governance systems, including quality assurance systems, were not always effective. Existing audits had not identified most of the issues we found in this assessment. Where audits had identified issues, these were often not addressed in a timely manner as they were discovered again in subsequent audits. This indicated improvements were not always made and/or sustained. There was a lack of consistency in how senior staff/managers carried out quality checks across the different supported living schemes. Some of the audits were more thorough than others. The management structure at one of the schemes was not robust enough, partly due to a number of changes in managers over a short period of time, which contributed to several safety incidents not being averted. Although, management oversight at this particular scheme was increased recently, existing systems and/or senior management had failed to ensure effective contingency planning were undertaken. While each scheme, which a designated area manager oversaw, had their own local management and was used by people who had different needs, our evidence showed a lack of consistency regarding how the schemes were managed. Despite managers meeting regularly, there was no evidence to demonstrate how they ensured the quality of care and safety did not fall below standards across the different schemes. The provider had not displayed their last inspection rating on theirwebsite as required. However, they rectified this when we brought it to their attention. Despite the concerns we found, the managers showed a constructive attitude towards addressing issues and a willingness to improve the service. The registered manager was aware of their duty to submit statutory notifications to CQC when needed. We also found improvements in how the service monitored and tracked various processes, such as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and safeguarding enquiries.

The service worked in partnership with other organisations to provide joined-up care to people. This meant people had access to the right teams for support when they needed it. A relative gave us an example of how the managers, care staff, a consultant and the family had a meeting and collaboratively produced a protocol which provided guidance on how to manage a person’s medical condition. The relative said, “This was being proactive.”

Staff told us they collaborated with other health and social care professionals when supporting people. One staff member told us about how they sought assistance from a local authority’s specialist teams to support a person who had complex behavioural needs. The staff member also spoke about the progress the person made since their admission to the service.

Our interactions with local authorities indicated a lack of transparency from the provider during enquiries led by external agencies. However, recent feedback from our partners suggested this issue had been addressed and the provider was engaging positively in processes for managing concerns.

There were arrangements that promoted dialogues between the provider and local communities, for example, to aid conflict resolution.

When things went wrong, the registered manager told us they held debrief sessions with staff to identify what went wrong and agree on improvement actions. A staff member told us they felt good about the recent changes in management at a particular scheme and felt the service was improving. An area manager spoke to us about the changes they were planning to make to improve the service and said, “We will be in a very different place in 3 or 4 months.”

The service utilised a number of tools and systems to promote learning and improve the running of the organisation as well as the quality of care provided to people. These included surveys to capture feedback from people, relatives/representatives and staff, and processes to analyse safeguarding incidents in order to reduce risks. However, our findings suggested these systems were not always effective in achieving their purpose. For example, where we found concerns around medicines management and staff training at the last inspection, we found similar and/or further concerns in these areas in this assessment. These shortfalls, together with feedback we received from partners, indicated the provider was not always able to ensure improvements were efficiently embedded and sustained.