George Hythe 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 Requires Improvement. 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. At the last assessment, the provider failed to ensure robust systems were in place, and that required improvements were made to the service. This was a breach of Regulation 17 (good governance), of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this assessment, we found enough improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.

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.

Staff spoke positively about the culture at the service. One staff member told us, “I would describe the home as like a big family.” The registered manager was passionate about supporting the staff and promoting a positive service culture.

The providers values and processes supported a positive service culture and invited staff engagement.

Feedback about the registered manager was consistently positive. People described the registered manager as approachable and friendly. Staff told us that concerns were taken seriously by leaders and action was taken promptly.

Leaders were knowledgeable about issues and priorities for the quality of service and systems and processes enabled them to address things in a timely way.

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and had a good understanding on how to escalate risk to ensure people’s safety.

Processes were in place to provide staff with opportunity to raise concerns and provide feedback. For example, private supervisions and team meetings took place. Information on how to escalate concerns was also available in the providers policies and on noticed boards around the service.

The culture at the service was inclusive and fair. Staff told us they were happy and enjoyed their place of work.

The provider was proactive at engaging with staff and celebrating success.

The registered manager was very knowledgeable and demonstrated competence in their role throughout our assessment process. Feedback about the registered manager was very positive. One staff member told us, “Perfect manager. First one I’ve had who is so good and sorts things out. She’s the best manager I’ve had by far.”

There was a range of robust governance systems in place to ensure service oversight and provide quality assurance. However, they were not always used effectively to ensure accurate, complete and contemporaneous record keeping. For example, we found that some people’s repositioning and fluid monitoring records were not always up to date. We raised this with the provider and they responded by implementing additional checks to ensure records reflected the care people received.

Staff and leaders worked in partnership with key organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care. People were supported to engage with other local services to promote community engagement and quality of life.

We found staff and leaders at the service to be approachable and engaging throughout our assessment process.

Feedback from partners indicated the staff and leaders at the service actively engaged with external health services to promote the wellbeing of the people using the service.

The providers systems and processes supported joined-up working.

Staff and leaders had a good understanding of how to make improvements, and actively sought engagement from people and their relatives. Leaders encouraged reflection and collective problem-solving.

Effective processes were in place to ensure lessons were learned when things went wrong. For example, the registered manager completed monthly falls analysis to assess incidents and drive safety.