The Saturn Centre SARC

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

We assessed 1 quality statement under the well-led key question. Governance systems were good and ensured patients received a safe, well managed and effective service. There was a focus on continuous improvement and staff were supported in their work.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The provider had a national governance framework in place which included policies, protocols and procedures that were accessible to all staff members on the organisation’s intranet site. The provider’s clinical quality governance board met regularly to scrutinise data from across all their services to ensure good oversight of the quality and safety of patient care.

Both NHS and police commissioners spoke highly of the service and its leadership, and of its responsiveness to their information requests.

There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the service. A dedicated manager was responsible for ensuring the smooth daily running of the SARC and compliance with protocols. An associate head of healthcare, operations manager and a regional contracts director supported them in this work.

There was a clear and easily accessible system in place for staff to report any adverse events or non-conformance incidents that occurred. All incidents were reviewed and graded by the governance team and used to drive improvement, with higher grade incidents reviewed every 2 weeks. A ‘lessons learnt’ meeting, facilitated by the governance team was held every month.

There was a strong emphasis on continuous improvement. Inter-SARC comparison exercises had been introduced across all the provider’s sites. Staff were presented with a particular case scenario exercise, and their responses were assessed. Results and takeaway messages from these were shared across staff teams to ensure conformity to protocols and procedures.

A rolling yearly audit plan had been developed to assess key areas of performance such as staff training, health and safety, medicines management, and the quality of patient records. Each month the manager conducted audits for infection control, the management of patients who self-referred and medicines prescribing. 10 sets of patient care records were audited for clinicians to ensure recording keeping standards were maintained. In addition to this, there were regular site visits from senior managers to check compliance with various aspects of the service. Daily and weekly checklists were used by staff to ensure essential tasks were completed on site.

The service had recently undergone an NHS quality review and was in the process of implementing some of the recommended suggestions, such as sharing child protection reports to designated and named professionals and strengthening partnership working.

The provider had systems to keep staff up to date with current evidence-based practice. Guidance from the FFLM was reviewed every 6 months by senior clinical managers to ensure the SARC was compliant with it. Information was disseminated through regular staff bulletins, the provider’s staff intranet and through updated operating procedures.

All staff received regular supervision, appraisal and peer review to ensure their practice met professional standards and identify any training needs. A compliance report was generated each month by the provider’s governance team, showing which staff were due their supervisions so that none were missed.

Staff well-being was taken seriously by the provider, who conducted regular wellness surveys and had appointed well-being champions for each region. Staff who had gone above and beyond their regular duties were recognised with an award, and the interim manager of the SARC had recently won due to their work in setting up the new premises.

Feedback to improve the service was actively sought from patients. Feedback forms were on site and QR codes were available on the provider’s website, posters and leaflets.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.