BMBC Reablement Service

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered- amend as required service. This key question has been rated 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. Professionals told us the service worked well with them, and communication was good. A professional said, “I believe the service to be well-led with managers to be easily approachable, knowledgeable and supportive of the wider Adult Social Care service. I believe the managers understand the pressures of Adult Social Care, the increased demand and work collaboratively with myself and other managers to achieve the best outcomes and seamless journey for those accessing the service.” The service had clear visions and values, which included being excellent, proud, honest and working as a team. Staff told us the morale within the team was good and they felt well supported in their roles. Staff received regular newsletters, which contained information about key changes, achievements, celebrations and best practice guidance.

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 service had a clear management structure, which consisted of regional managers, a registered manager, team leaders, practitioners and care co-ordinators. Senior staff had undertaken further management qualifications. Staff told us the leadership team were available and approachable. Comments included, “Managers are always available if needed.” and “I really enjoy my job, I think the reablement team leaders, other practitioners and the programming team are some of the most supportive and approachable people I have worked with.” Staff received spot checks, to ensure they were adhering to safe practices and providing the correct support to people. People told us they could raise concerns, and the service was well led. A person said, “The company is professional. , Wwith the help of the staff I have improved. My needs are regularly reviewed and monitored. I am very happy with the company and couldn’t have wished for better.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us the management team were approachable, and they could report concerns. Suggestions boxes were in place to enable staff to confidentially raise concerns or suggestions.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to promoting equality and diversity within the workforce. However, we received mixed feedback from staff regarding being treated with fairness. Some staff told us that certain employees are being treated preferentially by management. Staff were involved in regular team meetings and records evidenced staff had raised suggestions. Meetings covered key topics, such as lessons learned from incidents, safeguarding, compliance with regulations and any complaints or compliments.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. Whilst audits were in place, there were no senior carer quality monitoring audits undertaken to enable the service to recognise shortfalls. The service had received a recent 'peer review' visit, however this was across adult social care and did not specifically focus on this service. Some improvements were required to ensure governance systems were effective in identifying the concerns we found in relation to staff training, supervision and gaining feedback from staff. Senior leadership team meetings were in place and focused on service delivery and any improvements and any concerns, such as safeguarding concerns.

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. Professionals told us the service was effective and responsive. A professional said, “I believe the team are responsive. Communication is good, interactions with the team are positive, there are open lines of communication.” Where required, staff supported people to access the community and do their shopping. The service promoted and celebrated key dates throughout the year, which were relevant to them, such as 'dementia awareness week'.

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. Service developments plans were in place and on-going. These had recognised staff supervisions were required and action was taken to book these in. People received reviews at the end of their care package which enabled the provider to gain their feedback about their care.