Bull Point House & Annex

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 and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements in place and staff understood their role and responsibilities. The staff were supported to meet people’s needs. Any accidents or incidents were reported, recorded and action was taken to help reduce re-occurrence. There were robust audit systems and processes in place to give the provider good oversight of the quality of the service provided. For example, staff were well supported and provided with appropriate training. People, their relatives, staff and external healthcare professionals were asked for their views and experiences of the service provided by Bull Point House in a variety of ways to help ensure everyone was included. For example, collecting verbal and non-verbal responses and supporting people to respond in ways that enabled them to take part in the survey. Feedback was positive from everyone.

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 were supported to share their views of living at the service. Comments on a recent survey stated, “(Staff) give me choices, I have been to the cinema” and “(Staff) like to chat with me.” Other people indicated their views by choosing from a series of ‘faces’, from very happy to very sad. People were provided with regular informal opportunities to share their views. Relatives, of people who were supported, had shared their views with the service through a survey. The responses to this survey were positive. Relatives were very involved in the care and support of their family member. Staff were asked for their views. Comments included, “I look forward to going to work,” “There are enough colleagues in this team to enable me to do my job properly” and “I am able to do my job at a standard I am personally pleased with.”

The provider and registered manager had good oversight of the quality of the service provided. Robust audit systems and processes were in place to monitor all aspects of service provision. The audits were regularly reviewed by the provider. Training and supervision records showed staff were up to date with required training and had been regularly supported on a one-to-one basis by the manager. All incidents or unplanned event were reported, recorded and discussed to see if any lessons could be learnt and to reduce the risk of re-occurrence.

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.