We are With You - Rotherham

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 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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. They could explain how they applied the vision and values to the work they were doing with clients and the wider local community.

The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service. They did this through regular team meetings, visual reminders and through exemplifying the vision and values in their everyday work.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for the service, especially where the service was changing. The service had gone through a lot of changes since it took over this current contract, and staff said that they now felt that they were well consulted in the development of the teams and in the way that systems and processes were developed.

Staff could explain how they were working to deliver high quality care within the budgets available. Although caseloads were high, it was clear that managers were developing the service to ensure that it could meet the current demands. The structure of the teams had been altered as a result of analysis and the management team were proactive in making changes where they were necessary.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They had a range of experience in the sector and demonstrated a good understanding of the work they did and of the local community and how they worked within it.

Leaders within the service provided clinical leadership to staff. There was a team of clinicians who made themselves available to ensure the clients and staff had the right amount of clinical direction and advice.

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 clients and staff.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff to progress, many of the staff who were working in management positions had come from internal recruitment.

Clients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs. The service was working with local community organisations to enhance this experience and ensure that they continued to receive useful information.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from clients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. For example, they had made changes to the layout of the reception as a result of feedback, this made it easier for people to access the building and at the same time supported staff to feel safe and well supported.

The service had policies and procedures to support whistleblowing and the freedom to speak up and staff said that they would feel comfortable using these procedures if they needed to. They said that managers listened to their feedback and took action where needed.

Managers promoted an open and honest culture.

Staff received training in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion and they knew how to apply this learning.

Staff can apply to work flexibly and some had 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.

Evidence from other key questions indicated that governance and management arrangements were operating effectively.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed 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 service level. For example, meetings had been arranged so that staff could receive and discuss feedback, reminders were shared in relation to staff following engagement policies and to ensure that necessary referrals were made.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed. Audits included those of medicines management procedures, infection control and care records. Analysis of the data in relation to care records has helped the managers realise that a more effective care planning tool needed to be developed.

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

The service had plans for emergencies, for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak and staff had a good understanding of these plans. We saw an example of staff putting them into action. This was effective and caused the least disruption possible for clients and staff.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work which worked well and helped to improve the quality of care. Referrals could be made in a number of different ways, for example using an online form.

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 client care.

Leaders engaged with external stakeholders, such as commissioning bodies and other local service providers.

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

Feedback from external partners such as local authority safeguarding teams, training providers, community groups and other healthcare providers was largely positive and evidenced that staff within the service worked with them in a collaborative way to support client care and treatment.

The service worked with partner agencies and local third sector organisations to promote joined up care and facilitate engagement and access to other services and opportunities.

Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation and this led to changes. This took place through a number of different governance meetings at different levels across the service, where staff reviewed data and discussed and implemented actions as a result of this analysis.

Innovations were taking place in the service. The service was continuously assessing the way it structured its treatment programme to ensure that it remained up to date, relevant and met the needs of the local community. Staff were also making use of technology where possible, for example to receive referrals, communicate with clients and gather feedback.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them, these included a range of appropriate clinical audit programmes.