Cornerways

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

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 has remained good.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff

Clients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from clients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements.

Clients and carers were involved in decision-making about changes to the service.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and governors to give feedback.

Staff are able to apply to work flexibly e.g. flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at a team level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of the patients.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register. Staff concerns matched those on the risk register.

The service had plans for emergencies – for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

The service used systems to collect data from wards and directorates that were not over-burdensome for frontline staff.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, including the telephone system, worked well and helped to improve the quality of care.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. However, the providers new key performance indicators were yet to be fully embedded.

Information was in an accessible format, and was timely, accurate and identified areas for improvement.

Senior leaders engaged with external stakeholders – such as commissioners and Healthwatch.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give feedback.

Staff participated in national audits.

There was chance for staff to participate in research projects.