Hawabu 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 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.

There was a shared vision, strategy, and culture.

The person spoke positively about the support they received at Hawabu House. They said, “It’s good here. I like the staff and placement in general.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the service’s aims and objectives and told us they worked towards these on a daily basis. One staff member said, “We aim to promote independence so that when people move on, they are confident, capable, and properly supported. As a service, we want to ensure they receive consistent care and are able to build meaningful relationships in their community.”

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the management team. One staff member told us, “I find it great working here. Staffing and management and the whole team are good. Management are approachable. Management listen to us and tackle all situations.”

The nominated individual was present during the second day of the inspection and shared information with us about how they provided oversight of the service. Audits completed by both senior staff and the registered manager were shared with the nominated individual who was accountable for ensuring any required actions were taken in a timely way.

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.

Staff spoke positively about the management team. One staff member told us, “Our deputy manager, is very approachable, efficient, and always willing to listen. They role-model the behaviour and standards they expect from the team, which creates a positive and supportive working environment.” A second staff member said, “[Name of registered manager] has supported us in several ways and is extremely knowledgeable. We are able to learn a great deal from them. Even though they are registered across other services, they remain very approachable and always make time for us.”

The registered and deputy managers understood their responsibilities and were open to feedback given as part of the inspection. They both spoke with compassion and enthusiasm about their roles and the person they supported.

There were systems in place to ensure all staff understood their roles and responsibilities and there were clear lines of delegation. The management team had notified CQC of events that occurred within the service as required by law.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The person and staff were able to share concerns and felt they would be listened to. We reviewed staff surveys conducted by the provider and these reflected that staff felt any concerns they raised would be taken seriously.

One staff member told us, “Concerns can always be raised anonymously. However, I do not feel the need to do so. For me if it is a genuine concern, I want it to be clear that I am the o1 raising it. We have a policy in place. When we have concerns, we follow the whistleblowing procedure and report them to the Local Authority, the designated safeguarding individual, or the police as appropriate.” Another staff member said. “If staff wish to raise a concern anonymously, there is a complaint form available. This provides an alternative route for staff who may not feel comfortable speaking directly to management.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they felt they were treated fairly. One staff member told us, “I feel well supported, and the company genuinely listens and always works to find a solution. They are open and accommodating as long as you are not abusing the system. For example, if you call in sick, they provide appropriate support and carry out a wellbeing check. The manager is also very supportive.” A second staff member said, “I appreciate the open communication within the team. Everyone understands their role, we work together with a unified approach, and there is mutual respect across the service. No 1 is ever antagonised.”

Feedback gathered from staff by the provider showed staff were confident the provider promoted an anti-discriminatory approach, and staff had received training in this area to support this.

The provider had clear 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.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the care and support provided to the person. Weekly audits took place, based on CQC’s assessment framework which covered all aspects of the service and allowed the management team to review the quality of care provided. As part of these audits, the management team also carried out assessments of staff knowledge, which tested their understanding in areas such as the person’s care needs, legislation, professional boundaries and policies and procedures. Quality checks were also carried out to review the involvement of the person in their care and to support and ensure any cultural or diverse needs were being met.

Regular checks were carried out on the environment, equipment, incidents, accidents, and medicines. Completed audits were then used to create action plans, which detailed where changes or improvements were needed to improve quality and safety.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

The registered and deputy managers and the staff team worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure the person’s needs were met. Records we reviewed showed they worked with professionals from health and social care services. Social care professionals told us the management team shared information with them regularly so they could monitor the care provided and support the person in line with their views and wishes.

There was a focus on continuous learning, innovation, and improvement across the organisation.

There was evidence of learning through observation, audits, and quality assurance checks. The registered manager spoke positively about how they used reviews following incidents and events to improve practice and develop the skills and knowledge of the staff team. The registered manager had a proactive approach to the inspection and was receptive to feedback provided.