Champion 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 inadequate. 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 71 (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.

Regular staff meetings were held with each of the staffing groups to share their views and experiences and for the registered manager to cascade information about things happening in the service. Staff meeting minutes were maintained to ensure that all staff had access to the information they needed.

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.

Improvements were noted in leadership and staff support. Regular staff meetings were held across staffing groups to facilitate the sharing of views and experiences, and to enable the registered manager to cascade relevant service updates. Minutes from these meetings were maintained to ensure all staff had access to necessary information.

There was some evidence of action taken in response to concerns or feedback, although this process remained ongoing. The service had implemented a 'You said, we did' approach to feedback.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt the registered manager was approachable. One staff member told us, " I would not hesitate to speak up."

We spoke with relatives around speaking up. A relative told us “I don’t really know who to complain to but im sure I could find someone and tell them.” One person told us, “I have no problem with raising a concern about my care. There are meetings and I choose to attend when I want to.”

The service had also received compliments from families, relatives and friends regarding care provided to people living at the home. A health professional had complimented the medicines management improvement work completed at the home over the last few months.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to valuing diversity within the workforce. A team comprising individuals from a range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds was employed, and staff reported feeling respected and treated equitably. One staff member commented, “Our new manager is great. The staff are working much better now as they feel they are being listened to. We can go to the manager for assistance at any time.”

However, feedback from people using the service indicated that communication barriers existed between some staff and residents. During the assessment staff were observed on one occasion communicating in their preferred language, which at times impacted the clarity of interactions. One person told us, “I cannot understand them [staff] sometimes and I don’t always know their names or how to pronounce them. I have said this before, and nothing has been done about it.”

The management team acknowledged this feedback and purchased name badges after the meeting.

At the previous assessment, the provider’s governance arrangements were found to lack clarity regarding roles, responsibilities, and systems of accountability. During this assessment, we observed some progress.

The provider had introduced quality assurance processes to monitor care delivery and the experiences of people using the service. These included internal audits of risk assessments, care documentation, daily records, and medicines administration charts.

Data was used to identify trends and patterns in key areas such as accidents and incidents. The management team used this information to inform decision-making and support continuous improvement.

We reviewed safeguarding logs which demonstrated that staff took appropriate actions when concerns were raised. The provider maintained effective communication with the local authority safeguarding team and cooperated fully with any additional enquiries. This collaborative approach contributed to promoting the safety and wellbeing of individuals using the service.

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. A service development plan was in place, which logged, reviewed and acted upon current issues in a timely manner and was used to drive improvement.

At the previous assessment, action planning was identified as reactive rather than proactive. During this assessment we noted progress, with improvements being monitored by both the regional management team and the internal quality assurance function.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to continuous learning and development.Systems were in place to support organisational learning following incidents, and staff contributed to the promotion of safe and effective care. We discussed the importance of ensuring that all resulting actions are clearly documented and systematically tracked.

Staff at all levels were encouraged to contribute suggestions for improvement through surveys and team meetings.

The registered manager was responsive to feedback from people using the service. We discussed the importance of ensuring families are made aware of relative meetings. The manager took immediate steps to strengthen engagement with families and confirmed that invitations would be sent via email.

Incident and accident data was analysed to identify trends, such as falls, and used to inform preventative strategies aimed at reducing the risk of avoidable harm.