Wigan 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 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 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.

The strategy for the service was for the people being supported and the people who supported them to ‘live the best possible lives.’ The vision was an inclusive society in which diversity was celebrated which meant every person supported was treated with dignity, respect and has real choices and opportunities in life. At the heart of this was ‘putting individuals first’ and promoting dignity, independence and the right to choice. The provider’s values were to include, deliver, aspire, respect and enable.

The registered manager and other leaders we spoke with understood the importance of the values, vision and strategy. The registered manager explained how the values played an intrinsic role when recruiting staff. They explained how staff may not always have a background in health and social care and therefore the values of the person need to be in line with the providers values. The registered manager told us the values were discussed regularly in leadership meetings and in supervisions with staff.

We observed a person-centred culture which ensured the people being supported were at the heart of the service.

Staff told us there was a good culture within the service. One staff member said “I feel the culture is supportive and we all want the best life for the service users we support”, whilst another staff member said “the relationships with leaders and staff have changed a lot in the last few years, they are much better and I put that down to [the registered manager].”

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 provider ensured there was always a manager on site, 7 days a week. During the evenings and night-time, there was an on-call system which staff could use when required. There were appropriate cover arrangements when the registered manager was on annual leave.

The registered manager told us their leadership team was at capacity, and they felt supported in their role. They explained how they had a full induction when they started with the provider. They had regular formal monthly meetings with the head of operations and regular informal catch ups.

The registered manager had a wealth of experience in health and social care and as a registered manager. The registered manager and service level managers understood what the REACH standards were. The REACH standards are the name for the 11 standards people with learning disabilities have said they expected from a Supported Living Service, including them choosing who they live with, who supports them and how they are supported.

Staff felt leaders were competent and capable of leading the service effectively. Staff were complimentary of the registered manager and felt improvements had been made since they started with the service. One staff member said, “They [leaders] are good, and they know what they are doing and if they are not sure about the answer they will always go and find the answer and then get back to you and give advice.”

Staff felt leaders were visible and approachable. It was evident when we visited different locations that people and staff knew the registered manager and other service level managers which supported staff’s comments regarding the positive culture within the service.

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

The provider had up-to-date freedom to speak up policies and procedures. The provider ensured there were appropriate forums and opportunities for staff to speak up. Staff had access to an on-call system, team meetings and supervision sessions. It was evident staff had good relationships with one another and with their line managers. The provider had a system called ‘Hive’ which allowed staff to share their experience of working for them. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the charity’s strategic plans, sharing ideas and accessing speak out to anonymously report any concerns they may have. We saw examples of speak out posters at the different locations we visited.

Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and were confident they would be listened to. When we asked a staff member whether they were aware of the term ‘freedom to speak up’ they said “yes, ours is speak out and if there was issue, I would use this but I haven’t had to.” Another member of staff told us there was a ‘speak out policy’ and said “Even though I have never had to speak up, I feel confident I would be able to. I have made suggestions in the past and I feel management listen and we then all agreed on the best way to get things done.”

People and their relatives felt their voice was heard. Relatives said managers were accessible and felt confident they could raise concerns with them if required. We saw quarterly regional manager audits in which the registered manager spoke to people and relatives and sought feedback on care.

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.

The provider had a fair and inclusive culture which promoted equality of opportunity and anti – discriminatory practices. We spoke to a staff member who had come to the United Kingdom from another European country and was now a service level lead.

The service ensured equality, diversity, and inclusion was central in their recruitment. We observed staff from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds who worked for the service. The service supported these members of staff with any difficulties they had including adjusting to cultural norms. The registered manager told us how having a service level lead from another country helped with such conversations and normalised not immediately having the knowledge.

We saw evidence the leaders were committed to protecting staff from bullying and harassment and took appropriate action when this was reported.

Leaders made reasonable adjustments to support disabled staff to carry out their roles. This included matching the staff member with an appropriate person.

Leaders ensured staff were treated with fairness and respect from people and relatives. We observed an example in which the registered manager overheard a person becoming verbally frustrated with a staff member and they helped to address the issue immediately.

Staff said their requests for flexible working hours were always considered. Staff were trained in equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us everyone employed by the provider were treated equally, 1 staff member said, “there is no unfairness, everyone is treated the same.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability. However, there were shortfalls within their governance systems which had not identified issues identified during the inspection.

Overall, the service evidenced how their governance and management enabled them to deliver high standards of care. There was a clear, documented management structure in place. Staff understood their roles, responsibilities and who they were accountable to. Staff had a good knowledge of the leaders within the service and what their roles consisted of. Staff’s performance was regularly reviewed to maintain the high standards of care.

The service had governance systems which included audits, action plans and spot checks. We saw evidence of regular spot checks taking place, there was a quality assurance framework which the registered manager adhered to which included a quarterly review of incidents and safeguarding concerns and there were regular meetings being completed for all levels of staff. However, given the service had such systems we did find areas which needed improvement including care plans needing to be updated, consistent recording of IPC audits, the safety of the environment needed better oversight, and the goals and aspirations section of care plans required a more effective system to ensure outcomes were recorded.

The registered manager was aware of the services’ key risks which were recorded on the monthly meeting with the head of operations. An action plan was linked to these.

The registered manager empowered the service level leads through effective delegation.

The service had a business continuity plan in place which mitigated against short and longer-term issues which could impact their ability to deliver safe care. The service was effectively insured and protected from associated risks.

The service routinely submitted and kept track of notifications sent to the CQC and other bodies.

The provider ensured there were timely and effective communications across the organisation and that policies and procedures were up to date.

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.

The service utilised local services regularly including a user led charity dedicated to supporting disabled people and their families, a local community hub and a ‘green themed’ community charity.

The service regularly held events including birthday parties or to celebrate religious events such as ‘Easter’. We saw these events were well attended and relatives of loved ones were also invited.

The registered manager told us they had good relationships with the people who lived locally.

The registered manager worked in partnership with other organisations. They told us they attended other provider events for updated and learning. The service also worked closely with the local college which supported people accessing education. In addition, the service offered placements for students.

Feedback from stakeholders was positive. A local authority professional commented they had a close working relationship with the service, the team was “consistent”, all referrals were submitted in a timely and comprehensive manner and the leaders were good communicators who “build relationships easily with a wide range of practitioners.” A community learning disability nurse highlighted how supportive and engaging the service was whilst an occupational therapist commented how the service demonstrated a person-centred approach, as well as an eagerness to explore how further training and support could improve their delivery of care.

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.

The service evidenced how they identified and implemented improvements to the quality of the care they delivered. For example, a recent incident had led to the leaders deciding to secure all wardrobes and other furnishings to the wall, to reduce risk.

The provider ensured there were quality assurance processes in place. The service followed the regular cycle of planning, action and review. For example, the services were frequently visited by quality assurance officers who completed inspections and provided feedback to the service level managers and registered managers. During the registered managers checks, they involved friends and family and used their feedback to improve the service.

The service had an action plan for each location. When audits such as manager audits or quality assurance team audits were completed, actions were uploaded to the action plan. However, 35 actions were overdue on the action plan.

The service utilised quality advisors, who were people who were supported, to be involved in quality audits and facilitate voice groups in which people were supported to come together and discuss what was important to them.

We found some of the data was difficult to retrieve with the systems being used. For example, we wanted to cross reference information in the care plan with what staff had completed in terms of tasks. The registered manager supported us in printing large documents with the care notes on which is the process they followed for reviewing whether tasks had been completed.

The service had a sensory room at one of the locations. People had access to equipment which projected interactive images onto the wall. The space had been used to support a person with graded exposure/desensitisation therapy for a phobia they have.