Archived: Starlight Support Services

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 64 (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 provider had established a positive culture that was person-centred, transparent and inclusive. Managers and staff demonstrated a good understanding of equality, diversity and human rights, and explained how they prioritised safe compassionate care. People’s independence was promoted, and the involvement of relatives was welcomed.

The management team engaged with staff, people, their relatives and others important to them, and with other stakeholders.

We received positive feedback from staff about the management team. Staff told us that managers were very supportive. A staff member told us, “I think the organisation has a clear vision about what is expected of us (staff). I also have my own individual goals within my role, that I am working towards achieving.”

Team meetings were used to promote a shared vision for the direction of the service. Staff received an induction and handbook, so they understood the provider’s values.

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. The provider had not followed the correct process for changes to their registration. However, when this was brought to their attention, they took steps to address this by submitting the relevant registration applications.

The registered manager was involved in the service on a day-to-day basis. They knew people, their relatives and staff well, and expected good quality support to be provided.

Staff felt supported in their roles, enjoyed their work and worked well together. One member of staff told us, “I really enjoy my role - it is very rewarding.” Staff told us the management team was very visible and there was always someone available for support and advice.

The provider supported the well-being of staff and recognised supporting staff impacted positively on the quality of care. Staff attended debrief meetings following incidents where their welfare was checked. Staff had access to an external counselling service should they require this support.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard. The provider had policy and procedures in place to enable staff to actively raise concerns. The management team were open to feedback, and staff felt supported and encouraged to speak up and raise any concerns they had.

Staff told us they felt confident to actively raise concerns, without fear of detriment. Staff told us they felt listened to, and there was an open and honest culture. A staff member said, “There is an open culture. We can raise things with the management team and things get resolved quickly.” Another staff member told us, “I am aware of the whistleblowing policy. If something isn’t right, I would speak to my line manager and feel confident that I would be listened to.”

People’s voices were heard. People made choices about how they received care and in planning future activities. The provider supported people to speak up and to make informed decisions by using a range of communication systems. Relatives felt informed, involved and listened to.

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.

People were supported by a diverse workforce from different cultures and backgrounds.

Staff felt they were treated fairly and with respect. Staff were happy in their job. Staff told us they were supported at work, and encouraged to question practices and suggest new ideas or initiatives to help continually improve their practice. Staff told us they were also supported in their personal lives so they could carry out their role effectively. One member of staff told us that flexible working arrangements had been put in place to support them.

The provider had governance systems in place. A range of audits were undertaken by managers to check the quality of people’s care and support. These checks included audits of care records, medicine management, training, recruitment and health and safety checks. However, these had not always been robust.

The provider’s recruitment process for 1 staff member had not been initially robustly followed regarding a DBS check. However, steps had been taken to rectify this. Although an infection, prevention and control policy was in place and had been reviewed, it did not fully reflect a supported living environment. However, we found no issues in relation to IPC during the inspection and staff and managers understood their associated responsibilities. Some risk assessments and care plans needed some further development so all known health issues and risks were managed and mitigated. On a few occasions, the terminology used in records was not always appropriate. A best interests decision had not been made in accordance with legislation and guidance; this was dealt with immediately but indicated some further training for staff in MCA was needed.

The provider had implemented a clear staff structure, so staff were appropriately led and organised at each supported living service to meet the needs of people. Staff felt supported in their role and well informed about the needs of people. They told us communication systems were effective.

Relatives spoke highly of the staff and management team and felt fully involved in their family member’s care.

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 in partnership with others to meet people’s needs. For example, to meet people’s health needs staff made referrals to, and worked with health and social care professionals. These included GPs, social workers, and psychologists. People had up-to-date hospital passports which contained important information about people’s health and communication needs should they require hospital admission.

Staff supported people to access leisure and recreational facilities and participate in the life of their local communities.

The provider had a focus on continuous improvement and recognised further improvements could be made. The provider responded positively to feedback throughout the inspection process. They were open and honest and welcomed constructive feedback. They took immediate action to make improvements during the inspection. This included how they captured and had oversight of learning from incidents.

Staff reported they felt well supported by the registered manager and were encouraged to learn and develop in their role.

A relative told us, “The managers show huge integrity. They are always learning, they listen and get us involved. They go above and beyond.”