Believe Care and Support Ltd

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 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 79 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider was clear in their commitment to provide a ‘small support’ model of care with an emphasis on quality of care over quantity. This translated into some exceptional outcomes for people in terms of their health and wellbeing outcomes and independence. The provider was able to evidence that care packages had been declined if they did not fit with the ethos and values of the service. Values and goals of the service were clearly identified and shared with staff and people. The provider held a session on the values and ethos of the service as part of their employee inductions process. Professionals praised the leadership and culture of the service.

Managers were visible at the service and staff told us the management team were accessible. There was a clear hierarchy of management across the service, and staff told us they knew who to approach and what to approach them for. The culture of the service was open and transparent, opportunities to develop and improve were seen as valuable, and change for the better was embraced. We saw evidence of the provider listening to feedback from staff and people and actively responding to improve the service as a result.
 

The provider had exceptionally 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 always did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Although we received some mixed feedback from staff, most staff told us that managers were approachable, supportive and engaged well. Managers at the service kept in regular contact with people, relatives and staff by a range of different methods. This included engagement with a relative who lived abroad in a country with a significant time zone difference.

The provider had received a nomination in a nationally recognised ‘women achieving greatness in social care’ award category. Managers at the service had appropriate sector specific qualifications and a strong history of working in services supporting people with learning disabilities and autism. Some managers had lived experience of supporting family members with learning disability and autism, and this lived experience resulted in a management team that were deeply passionate about providing good and compassionate care.

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

We received some mixed feedback from staff about freedom to speak up and whether they would be listened to. However, the majority of staff told us the provider promoted and supported a culture of openness and transparency and that their views, thoughts and feelings were valued by the provider, and were used to support the service in being the best that it could be for people and staff.

Policies in relation to safeguarding, speaking up and whistleblowing and people knew how to access them. A grievance policy was also in place, and we saw an example of when staff had expressed a grievance and how this was appropriately managed by way of outsourcing to an independent employment law representative.
 

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.

Most staff that we spoke to told us they were treated fairly in the workplace, free from bullying and harassment and treated with dignity and respect.

The provider had inclusive recruitment policies and procedures in place that supported diversity and inclusion. Staff with protected characteristics had been supported by the provider making reasonable adjustments when required. Neuro diverse staff and those with medical or health conditions that impacted their ability to work had been recognised by provider and work-related health passports supported these staff to remain in work with reasonable adjustments to support them.
 

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The was a clear designation of management across the service and governance system were continually assessed and reviewed to ensure their ongoing effectiveness. When systems or procedures did not meet the needs of the service, new systems had been introduced and new procedures developed to better meet the needs of the service. The service users champions worked proactively and effectively across the service to continually embed good and developing practice.

The provider held regular management meetings around governance, health and safety, quality improvement and human resources and recruitment. There was a service improvement plan in place and actions were tracked for progress. Audits carried out across the services were quality assessed and analysed for root causes, themes and trends. One professional told us, “During my recent reviews, I noted improvements in the governance arrangements, with information being readily available to support the reviews and {registered manager} was able to identify areas that required improvement and had plans in place.

The provider demonstrated their commitment to sustainability and the importance of quality of service by declining packages of care which they did not believe they could support effectively.

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 praised the provider for their excellent attendance and engagement at meetings. The provider and managers at the service regularly attended a learning disability forum, care provider forum and registered managers network meetings.

When appropriate staff supported people to access their local community.
 

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation. 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 provider used a range of auditing tools to identify areas of concern and good practice. Audits and their subsequent analysis were used to drive improvement across the service, and there was a clear and demonstrable evidence of the provider shaping the service based upon this information. The provider spoke with passion about their desire to provide care at the highest levels and that acknowledging when improvements were needed was an integral part of achieving this. We saw evidence of a culture of listen, reflect, learn and respond.

The views of staff, people and their relatives were regularly sought to shape the service, as well as those of external stakeholders.