The Goddards

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 care and continual improvement of the service.

This service scored 61 (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.



People spoke positively about the service and their experiences. Staff received appropriate support from the registered manager. The registered manager was aware of shortfalls at the service and was open and transparent about these. The provider and registered manager ensured people's needs were at the heart of the service and the delivery of care.

The provider had an inclusive registered manager who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. However, the registered manager did not always prioritise work to lead effectively.



There was an open and inclusive culture at the service but there were still areas of improvement from the last inspection. The registered manager was visible and approachable throughout our site visits. Staff told us they felt supported and could approach management with issues. However, we identified issues with the overall governance of the service. Quality systems in place to manage the quality of the service were not always completed as the registered manager was required to support staff with people's care and support needs.

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



Staff felt able to speak up and were aware of the whistleblowing policy. We saw whistleblowing and safeguarding posters displayed in the service. Supervision records and team meeting minutes were sporadic though, so there was scope to promote further opportunities for staff discussion.

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 happy within their role and felt fully supported by the registered manager. One staff member told us, "I love it here. We are like one big family. There is nothing that [registered manager’s name] wouldn’t do for the people and us. They are really supportive."

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.



The providers governance systems were not always followed. Systems and processes were in place to ensure governance. However, audits to monitor the quality of the service had not been completed in line with the provider’s own schedules. There was no consistent approach to monitoring the service and we found shortfalls in governance. The registered manager was aware that some aspects of governance had not been fully completed and this was due them prioritising people's care needs and support. Accidents and incidents were not always followed up or escalated in line with the provider’s policy. Care plans and risk assessments did not receive regular updates or reviews to ensure that staff had up to date information about people. Staff training records were not accurate and staff supervision had not always been completed in a timely manner. The provider was also aware of the shortfalls at the service and reported to us that they believed issues relating to the funding of people’s care was directly impacting on service delivery.

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 provider and registered manager routinely worked with visiting health professionals to ensure people received the right support. Information of concern about the funding arrangements and service delivery had been shared with the local authority and discussions had been held to ensure people continued to get the care and support they required.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always have a proactive culture of continuous learning and improvement. This was because the service was inconsistently managed which impacted the ability to focus on continuous learning and improvement. We found opportunities to continuously learn lessons and improve the service were missed, especially when things had gone wrong. For example, where incidents were reported no follow up action had been taken to identify lessons learnt.