ivolve Suffolk Supported Living

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 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 service. This key question has been rated requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 clear vision and culture which was based on individuality and person centred care to enable people to live an ordinary life in their community. However, greater ambition is needed to help people to thrive, as some people’s lives were relatively sedentary, and we did not see evidence that people always led a full life. The language used in documentation was not always respectful and in line with the vision of the organisation. We received inconsistent feedback from relatives with some telling us that their interactions with staff were positive, but others felt not listened to or always respected.

Staff spoke warmly about the organisation and told us that there was a spirit of teamwork which enabled them to support people effectively. Regular team meetings took place where there was some reflection on practice.

At the time of our assessment, there was no registered manager in post. The previous registered manager had left some months previously and the manager of a nearby service was overseeing the management of the service alongside their existing management role. The manager was supported by an area manager and had external support from the wider organisation.

A new manager had been appointed and was undertaking their induction at the time of our assessment. Staff welcomed the appointment of a new manager and told us that while the acting manager had been very supportive and helpful they thought the service would benefit from a manager who was based at the service.

The manager told us that they fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident the management would listen to them and respond. Supervision and staff meetings covered whether staff had concerns and how to raise these. We saw that staff had supported people to assert their rights as tenants, for example, ensuring landlords made repairs to their home.

However the feedback from relatives about speaking up was inconsistent, some told us that the service responded positively to concerns when raised but others told us that they did not feel listened to and concerns that they had raised had not been fully addressed.

The provider told us that no formal complaints had been made this year, and informal concerns have been reviewed by managers. However, the system for addressing informal concerns may benefit from review given the comments that we have received.’
 

The provider valued diversity in their workforce and staff working at the service had different cultural backgrounds and experiences.

Staff told us that they were treated as individuals by the provider and they felt supported, listened to and encouraged to speak up in team meetings and share ideas. Staff told us they were treated fairly and had no concerns about their own treatment and to their knowledge the treatment of their colleagues.

There was an overarching quality assurance system to monitor the quality of the service being provided which included internal audits, and compliance checks as well as out of hours visits. The audits reviewed various aspects of care and service management including medicines management, care planning, record keeping, accounting for people's money, and the monitoring and analysis of accidents and incidents. The provider had invested in a new electronic recording system to aid consistency and oversight. An action plan was in place, but the focus was on gaps in documentation and safety. The manager was addressing the areas identified.

Governance systems did not capture the feedback we received from relatives about their family members experience. The provider told us that they hold Family Forums where relatives from across all their services are invited and given the opportunity to feedback and ask questions. However quality assurance systems would benefit from greater focus on people’s day to day experience and feedback from relatives.

The provider told us about the Strive roll out which aims to capture peoples views and the implementation will be reviewed at our next assessment.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate, so services worked seamlessly for people. People’s care records showed that they shared information with partners such as the local authority and incorporated guidance from health colleagues into the care they provided. However, relatives gave inconsistent feedback about how well the service worked in partnership with them and a number told us they would benefit from more regular and consistent communication as well as a greater focus on new experiences for their family member.

The provider had a quality system which aimed to drive improvement across the organisation. Regular team meetings and supervisions were held with staff to reflect on learning. They told us that they were open to undertaking research and had participated in a pilot project looking at the use of assistive technology.