Godfrey Barnes Care SL Limited

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.

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.

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. The statement of purpose was reflected in the values of the leaders and staff we spoke with, and in the tailored approach to meeting the needs of people in the provider’s care. Properties were adapted to meet the needs and preferences of individuals before they came to live there and people were provided with opportunities to be actively involved in the recruitment of the new staff. People’s care plans and processes in place were supportive of the vision, strategy and culture.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The leaders we spoke with had the necessary experience of working in adult social care and specifically in supported living. Most of the leaders we spoke with had progressed in their careers from carer roles to their current leadership positions.

The majority of staff we spoke with stated that they felt supported by leaders and they could approach them for support. Some staff said they did not feel as supported by management and they did not always respond to emails in a timely way. We raised this with leaders who said that they try to be as available as possible to staff. We observed positive interactions between leaders and staff, and processes such as regular supervision were in place.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had a whistleblowing policy and whistleblowing procedures were advertised on posters at the provider locations we visited. Most staff that we spoke with stated they felt supported and able to speak up if they had a concern. The majority of staff we spoke with told us they felt supported in their roles. However we did receive some information of concern regarding staff feeling unsafe at work. We informed the provider of this who gave us assurances that the concerns staff raised had been mitigated.

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. We saw evidence of the provider making reasonable adjustments for staff. For example, by allowing a staff member to attend appointments and being flexible about their shift pattern to accommodate this. Leaders also demonstrated an understanding and willingness to accommodate the cultural needs of their staff – for example, by ensuring that members of staff were able to take holiday and change shifts in order to celebrate religious festivals.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. The leadership had systems and processes in place whereby they could maintain oversight of the day-to-day running of the various properties under the provider’s Supported Living Portfolio. All daily and weekly audits carried out by staff at individual locations were checked over by leaders during comprehensive monthly audits and analysed for any themes and trends that could lead to issues being identified and improvements being made.

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. We saw evidence of positive relationships and communication with professionals, family and community stakeholders. We saw people being supported to attend the gym, visit local cafes, and make visits home to their family with the support and facilitation of staff. A Supported Living newsletter was produced on a regular basis and distributed people, their family and key stakeholders. This included sections which celebrated the achievements of people being supported by the provider, informed about social events that people had attended, introduced members of staff in a, ‘getting to know you’ format, and provided news about the provider as a whole.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. Incident reporting procedures placed an emphasis on learning, involving both people and staff in order to improve the support provided. The staff we spoke with told us the provider offered comprehensive training and they were supported to pursue areas of professional development. For example, one staff member told us that they did not require Non-Abusive Psychological and Physical Intervention ( NAPPI) training for their role, but the provider agreed to them taking the training anyway for their professional development.