Ackroyd 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 inspection 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 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

It was clear the service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. The culture at Ackroyd House was positive, inclusive, person-centred and achieved good outcomes for people. Relatives told us they were in regular contact with the staff team. During our visit we found a positive, relaxed and friendly environment. Staff continually checked people were comfortable, happy and receiving the support they needed. People, their relatives and staff were given opportunities to contribute their views about the service. Their views were listened to, and people’s wishes were acted upon. The provider and registered manager regularly asked people, those close to them staff and other partners to feedback about their experience of the service. Suggestions made were acted upon. People and those close to them felt the service was well-led. For instance, relative’s comments included, “I’m comfortable that [my loved one] is safe and well looked after. There’s nothing I’m unhappy about. I know the manager. I speak to the manager or the lead staff. If I wanted to speak to the manager I could do it anytime. The manager is very approachable. He explains everything to me. I can ring him if I want. I have had a questionnaire, and I filled it in. I have no complaints. If I wasn’t happy with any aspect of the care [my loved one] wouldn’t be there,” and “Yes, I know the manager. I can talk to him and the business manager. If we have a concern they’re very friendly. We chat to the managers. We’re very happy with how [my loved one] is being looked after there. [My loved one] is better than that have been for a number of years. It’s down to how they’re being looked after.”

The service had caring and 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. We received positive feedback from people’s relatives regarding the leadership in the service. For example, a relative said, “I do know the manager. He always says hello if he sees me. I’m comfortable speaking to him. They look after [my loved one] alright. It’s friendly. They have relatives’ meeting. They ask if everything’s OK. I think they’re a good idea. You can air your views.” Another relative told us, “I do know the manager. I speak to him, especially if I have issues. I either speak to him or the assistant manager. When I speak to them everything is always sorted out and fine. They couldn’t do enough.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people and staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service had a whistle blowing policy and staff said the felt able to raise concerns. One relative said, “I know the manager and the assistant manager. I can speak to either. They listen and act on what I've said. I told them about a concern, and they’ve acted on this, following my conversation with them. There are relatives' meetings; I’ve been to a few. They do listen to what is said and answer any questions that we might have. I’ve also seen questionnaires. I have received them and filled them in. I have no other suggestions for improvement.”

The provider strongly valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair culture which supported equality and equity for the people who worked for them. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care, so their care plans showed what was important to them. People’s equality and human rights were protected, people were supported by staff who helped them overcome barriers to care and receive good outcomes. The management team were aware of people who were likely to experience inequality and actively listened to make sure people’s care was tailored address this. People were supported as individuals, to follow their interests and to take part in activities that were socially, and culturally relevant to them. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and their religious and spiritual beliefs were respected. The staff team were alert to discrimination and inequality. They told us they were provided with training on equality, diversity and inclusion. This helped to raise awareness of people’s rights. Staff worked with people, those close to them and other professionals to make sure people received support they needed in relation to their protected characteristics. Protected characteristics are specific attributes safeguarded against discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

The service had clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability. The registered manager acted on information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared information with others, securely and when appropriate. Members of the management team carried out checks and audits and kept these up to date. The audits identified any performance shortfalls, and progress made towards addressing them was recorded. There were checks to make sure specific records and tasks were completed, such as care plan and risk assessment reviews and updates. These audits fed into the service’s development plan. This helped make sure the service was person focussed and effective.

The provider and registered manager understood the value of collaborating and working in partnership. They shared outcomes, information and learning with partners and collaborated well, working openly with people, those close to them and other professionals. People’s relatives told us there was good communication between them and the service. The provider and registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and were open and honest when any incident occurred or when things went wrong. They fulfilled their responsibility to report events and incidents to CQC.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improving care. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. There were effective systems in place to monitor accidents, incidents, near misses, and concerns and complaints. These helped identify any lessons to be learnt. Where lessons were learnt, action had been taken to reduce the chance of recurrence, including updating staff approaches and training, and people’s care plans and risk assessments. We found managers and staff to be clear about their roles, and managers had a good understanding quality performance, of people’s needs and risks in the service.