Glenmore Trust - Northumberland Street

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 good. At this assessment the rating changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 documented vision and strategy based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was evidence that the provider had a strategy and vision for the organisation, however feedback gathered during the assessment did not consistently demonstrate that the vision, strategy and culture were shared across the organisation. Staff were positive about the support and communication they received from peers, team leaders and immediate managers. However some staff reported that communication and engagement from the senior management team was not always effective and that they did not always feel informed, listened to or feel supported and that improvements were needed with communication and culture within the service.

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,experienceand credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity,opennessand honesty.

People received support from staff who promoted independence,choice and community involvement. Staff described positive cultures within local teams and spoke positively about team leaders and immediate managers, describing them as approachable, supportive and responsive. Local leaders were visible within services and helped maintain positive outcomes for people. One member of staff told us they “Could not ask for a better team leader” reflecting the positive feedback we received about local leadership.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff understood how to raise concerns and described local managers as approachable and supportive. However, some staff were less confident that concerns raised beyond local management resulted in visible action or feedback. One member of staff told us that when concerns were raised, “Nothing appeared to be done”. This reduced assurance that staff consistently felt heard by the wider organisation, although we found no evidence that staff had been prevented from raising safeguarding concerns.

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 provider promoted a culture where people were supported as individuals and staff generally described respectful and inclusive working environments. Recruitment arrangements, training systems and person-centred support demonstrated a commitment to equality and inclusion. We did not identify evidence of discriminatory practice affecting people using the service.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had governance systems which included audits, medicines monitoring, safeguarding oversight and quality assurance processes. These systems generally supported safe care. However, we did identify areas of record keeping that needed to be improved. We raised these during the assessment and the provider took steps to address these.

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.

The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals, advocates, local authorities and housing providers to support positive outcomes for people. Staff and professionals described positive multidisciplinary working and coordinated approaches to care. This helped support continuity and access to services.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

The provider had systems to review incidents, safeguarding concerns and feedback. It also had robust staff training schedules and clear routes for staff development. However, some staff did not always see how learning from concerns and feedback was used to improve the service. The management team was introducing new systems to strengthen continuous learning and improvement, but these were not yet fully embedded.