Right at Home Solent

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

There were clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance in the service. These were used to deliver good quality, sustainable care, and support for people. Information was used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of 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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had outlined clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability. The registered manager and directors met regularly and there was effective oversight. Where responsibilities were delegated to others, such as reviewing people’s care planning documentation there was a clear system in place to identify and escalate concerns. The registered manager met with the office staff weekly to review concerns, feedback from people, outstanding actions, safeguarding’s, accidents and incidents, complaints and any concerns impacting people. Outside of this weekly meeting, there were processes in place to alert the registered manager to any concerns. The provider, registered manager and staff met regularly to review current performance, compare past performance and identify actions to improve future performance. Staff were encouraged to feedback suggestions and ideas and were included in planning improvements. There were effective quality assurance processes in place; audits had clear actions identified with realistic timescales and identified people of responsibility to complete actions. The provider had a clear process in place to investigate complaints and learn lessons from these, as well as accidents, incidents and errors. There was a service improvement plan with clear actions, realistic timescales and regular reviews and updates with clearly identified individuals responsible for overseeing specific actions.

Leaders were passionate about investing in their staff and understood the value of ensuring they had clear responsibilities and were well supported. Staff were highly positive about the leadership and governance of the service. They felt well supported and were clear about their roles and responsibilities. For example, one staff member told us, “They picked me up and showed me my worth and potential, they gave me a lot of praise and it is a joy to work here.” Staff were positive about the systems in place to manage risk, they felt they worked to ensure people’s safety. For example, a staff member said, “They [leaders] are always assessing risk and checking in and if you are not happy they review and always ask you and the person for their input.”

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.