Supported Living Services Uxbridge

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 71 (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.

Staff said the culture within the service was positive, inclusive and compassionate, which helped build trust and understanding between the service and people using it. Relatives we spoke with and 2 people using the service also confirmed this.

Staff and the registered manager demonstrated a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights, and they prioritised safe, high-quality and compassionate care.

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.

People using the service, their relatives and staff told us they found the registered manager approachable and helpful. Staff said they could talk to the manager or deputy at any point and felt involved and included in the day to day running of the service and any changes that occurred.

Staff said they were in regular contact with the registered manager and had regular team meetings, as well as support and supervisions, which provided opportunities for discussing any issues with the service and how to make improvements.

Some people using the service and staff told us the registered manager visited regularly and completed checks and audits to make sure each supported living setting was providing safe and good quality care and support for each person who lived there.

All staff told us the registered manager was ‘just at the end of the phone’. A member of staff working a long distance from the main office said, “This is not an issue, as [registered manager] is just a call away.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had effective systems and processes in place to help ensure people knew how and felt confident to speak up, raise concerns and whistle-blow, without fear of retribution. We saw the service had a whistleblowing policy, which staff said was regularly discussed with them.

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.

The management team provided effective and proactive ways to engage with and involve staff. They heard staff’s voices and listened to them. Staff told us they felt supported to develop their skills and knowledge and were offered training to help with career development.

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.

Staff, people using the service and their relatives told us they felt the service was well managed and said the registered manager and deputy were very approachable and supportive. People told us the registered manager kept in touch with them by phone or by visiting them.

A member of staff told us, “The manager does come to do checks about every other month. If the manager comes to the house for any other reason, they will normally speak to [Name] and have a look around.”

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

Some local authority feedback we received and feedback from a person’s day service said communication was poor and the staff and management of the service did not work well with them. A member of staff at a person’s day service said they had not been aware until the last minute that we would be visiting the person who was living in a local supported living setting. They said they had needed to quickly compile a ‘social story’ to explain to the person that we would be visiting, to try and minimise any anxiety. This person also told us that when they tried to contact the registered manager, they often failed to respond.

However, people using the service, staff and relatives consistently told us there was good communication with the registered manager and there was positive involvement and engagement with healthcare professionals to help maintain and enhance the quality of people’s lives who were using the service.

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. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The service had effective systems and processes in place to help ensure that lessons were learnt when things went wrong. We noted that any issues were raised and discussed in team meetings, as well as during staff’s supervision sessions. We found that lessons had been learned from mistakes and shortfalls in the past and appropriate action had been taken to ensure improvements were made and maintained.

Staff told us how they contributed to making improvements to the service. They said they were encouraged to put forward improvement ideas and, those we spoke with, said they trusted the registered manager to listen and act appropriately.

Staff told us that if things went wrong, the issues were discussed with staff during team meetings and individual support and supervisions.