Warwick 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

The registered manager and deputy manager met with us in an on-line meeting on 11 April 2024, having previously provided specific information to CQC. The service was well led. There were robust audit systems and processes in place to give the provider good oversight of the quality of the service provided. All incidents were reported, recorded and analysed and action was taken to reduce the risk of re-occurrence. The provider used an electronic social media channel for staff and management to be able to freely communicate about all aspects of the running of the service. The service was fully staffed. Staff had access to welfare resources and support. Staff received regular supervision and appropriate training. People were encouraged to be independent and make decisions for themselves where possible. People had been supported to share their views and experiences of the service provided by Warwick House. Feedback, shared by the provider, was positive.

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.

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.

People had been supported to complete a quality assurance survey with staff encouraging verbal and non verbal responses. Feedback from people was positive. Comments included, “I can complain to any of the people who support me” and “Yes you look after me well.” Relatives responded to a survey. Comments included, “(Person’s name) seems very happy.” The service had received compliments including, “I just want to say how lovely the staff were at Wednesday’s disco. Credit where credit is due,” “How nice the house is looking with new artwork in the hall” and “Staff are focused and person centred.”

The provider and registered manager had good systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. The provider was able to review the programme of audits which the registered manager and team carried out. Staff were provided with different ways to communicate with management. There were team meetings, supervision and a digital 'chat room' which provided opportunities for staff to contact management 24/7 when required. This service also provided a channel where staff could communicate confidentially with staff. Staff were incentivised to complete any updates of training indicated, on the electronic system, by the end of each month. Each staff member was encouraged to take responsibility for an aspect of monitoring the quality of the running of the service. Supervision records showed staff had been regularly supported on a one-to-one basis by the registered manager. All incidents and any unplanned events were reported, recorded and discussed to reduce the risk of re-occurrence. Reflection was encouraged to learn any lessons from events. Any defects identified at the service could be easily reported by all staff and management on an electronic system directly to the estates team. This had improved the timely repair of any defects. This assessment process had identified that staff had not been formally surveyed for their views and experiences of working for at Warwick House. The registered manager provided assurances that this would be addressed going forward.

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.