South Hill

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.

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 that supported people to receive compassionate, person centred care for people in supported living settings. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.  

During this assessment, a manager was temporarily in post with the support of a perihepatic manager. The provider had recently recruited a permanent manager who was due to start in July 2026.The manager and perihepatic manager told us they had a positive working relationship and worked well together to meet people’s individual needs and support staff effectively.

Staff told us the recent changes in management were welcomed and positive. The current culture within the service encouraged openness. However, staff said that previously they had not felt supported by management but this had changed since the current manager had started working at the service. They said the manager encouraged a positive culture of learning and development at the service. They said they felt listened too and valued. Staff were aligned with the provider’s values and were positive about working at the service. A member of staff told us, “[The manager] is lovely and very supportive. They always respond to emails. I can absolutely reach out and would not hesitate to do so.”

Staff undertook a range of training and spoke positively about this. A member of staff told us, “Very rewarding training. I have learnt a lot of skills and techniques.” There was communication between staff so that they could share their experiences and learn from one another. Systems and processes had been designed in line with the service’s vision and values and focused on people and meeting their individual needs.

The provider had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

There was an organisational structure in place. Throughout the assessment of the service, management and staff we spoke with acted with openness, integrity and transparency.

During the site visit, we observed positive interactions between people who used the service and management. People appeared familiar and comfortable in their presence.

The majority of relatives spoke positively about the management of the service. A relative said, “I would particularly like to acknowledge[the manager], who has been responsive and willing to communicate with families. I appreciate their efforts to keep relatives informed and involved.”

Staff told us management were knowledgeable and provided them with the support they needed to do their job effectively. There was open and ongoing communication between the management team and staff.

The provider fostered a culture where people and relatives felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There were clear reporting structures, staff understood who to speak up to and how.

The majority of relatives we spoke with told us they could raise concerns. A relative told us, “I have generally found managers approachable and willing to discuss concerns. Communication has usually been open and professional, and I appreciate being able to raise issues when necessary.”

Management actively encouraged staff to speak up to drive improvement through raising concerns and sharing ideas. Staff we spoke with were confident their voices were heard, listened to and acted on.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place and posters displayed informing staff how they could speak up with any concerns. People were supported to understand their tenancies and staff advocated for people to ensure they had the right care and environment to meet their needs and wishes.

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 were actively supported to complete training in key areas such as autism, equality, diversity and inclusion, positive behavioural support and de-escalation to reinforce best practice. This helped them feel confident and equipped to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff told us they felt valued and were treated well. Managers were responsive to staff’s individual circumstances. This helped to ensure reasonable adjustments were made to accommodate staff’s needs.

The provider had responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and governance systems. However, we found that these did not always identify shortfalls. Systems and processes were in place to help monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service to help ensure risks were identified and mitigated, enabling and empowering people to receive safe care. Governance processes including audits and checks were carried out. Overall, these were comprehensive and looked at various aspects of the running of the service. However, we found that they did not always clearly identify issues that we found during this assessment. For example, issues with the completion of MARs were not promptly identified. Further, despite having a system for recording and reporting incidents, a recent incident had not been reported appropriately.

The provider had governance and assurance process at various levels which included service level audits and managerial audits. This enabled management to carry out scrutiny of service standards against key quality indicators, compliance and regulation. Findings from these processes were used to inform the service’s quality dashboard and help make improvements.

The manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ principles, to ensure care and support was person‑centred and focused on achieving positive outcomes for people.

The provider had business continuity plans in the event of an untoward event or emergency which may disrupt the safe running, continuity or sustainability of 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. The manager told us they worked with other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care.

People’s community participation was encouraged and supported, with staff supporting people to access activities, develop independence and build relationships outside of their home.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. Systems in place were designed to look for ways to improve the running of the service and the quality of care people received. Systems were in place to seek feedback from people, relatives and staff.

Governance and assurance processes were in place to help create opportunities for learning and improvement. The manager told us they welcomed feedback and an opportunity to make improvements. The manager promoted honesty and learning from mistakes and there was a clear understanding of the need to be open in the event of anything going wrong.

The service had links with external healthcare professionals, with scope to strengthen these partnerships to share best practice and improve outcomes and experiences for people.