Disability Supported Accommodation Service North Network

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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.

Leaders demonstrated a positive, compassionate, and listening culture. The staff we spoke to told us it was a good place to work, and the management team were responsive and available for guidance and support, which contributed to a culture of trust.

Staff were actively involved in shaping the service’s direction, including through initiatives under the Better Outcomes, Better Lives (BOBL) programme. One pilot focused on helping people set goals and measure progress towards independence. People using the service co-designed the pilot, contributing feedback on language, visuals, and accessibility. This feedback was implemented, demonstrating a commitment to co-production and person-centred care.

The service worked closely with the local authority and partner organisations to support recruitment and hiring. Values-based training was embedded from induction, focusing on compassion, dignity, and privacy, which helped staff integrate meaningfully into the service. Staff who demonstrated values of the service were recognised with a formal reward.

Staff cohesion was supported through initiatives such as ‘Let’s Talk About Race’ sessions and culture days for staff from ethnic minority backgrounds. These created space for open dialogue and reflection, and the service was exploring how to respond to feedback from these events. Alongside efforts to reduce reliance on agency staff, these initiatives contributed to a stable and inclusive team culture.
 

There was a strong and experienced leadership team who were visible, approachable, and committed to fostering a positive culture. One staff member told us, "(The manager) is always available and cares about our wellbeing.” Leaders demonstrated integrity, openness, and a willingness to listen to staff and people using the service.

The registered managers had progressed internally from support worker roles, which reflected the service’s commitment to inclusive leadership development and succession planning. Their strong understanding of frontline practice helped build trust and engagement with staff, and they were reflective about areas for improvement.

Leaders responded to staff feedback by increasing access to training. This included optional courses beyond mandatory requirements, open to all staff regardless of role. Staff were supported to develop skills for future positions, showing the service valued their growth and ambitions.

Staff told us communication was clear and consistent. They were kept informed about changes affecting people’s care and the wider organisation. Leaders promoted transparency and ensured staff felt involved in decisions that affected their work.
 

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

Staff feedback was gathered through surveys and supervisions, and staff consistently told us they felt confident to raise concerns with managers when needed. One staff member said, “Management listen to you when you have something to say, and I have a good relationship with the managers.”

The service had a whistleblowing policy and had established multiple channels for reporting concerns, including a dedicated email address, hotline, and physical address. Five designated individuals within the organisation were nominated to receive concerns, and staff were also provided with guidance on how to report issues externally.

These mechanisms supported a culture of openness and safety, ensuring staff felt their voices would be heard and acted upon.
 

The service 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 service demonstrated a strong commitment to workforce equality, diversity, and inclusion. They actively supported the recruitment and retention of staff with disabilities, working with specialist organisations to make reasonable adjustments and match individuals’ strengths to appropriate roles, such as office administration.

Policies including the Staffing and Workforce Policy and the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy underpinned the fair and equitable treatment of staff. Staff told us they felt treated fairly and described a range of initiatives that promoted an inclusive working environment.

The service also promoted an inclusive culture through events such as, “Let’s Talk About Race”, and staff-led cultural days, which celebrated the backgrounds of staff from ethnic minority communities. These initiatives encouraged open dialogue, mutual respect, and helped foster a psychologically safe environment for all staff.
 

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, or share this with others when appropriate.

Governance and oversight arrangements were inconsistently applied across the service. While managers at individual properties demonstrated a good understanding of their roles, systems for monitoring performance, incidents, and outcomes were not fully embedded. Some audits, such as those for medicines, did not consistently identify issues or lead to meaningful improvements. However, other audits, including infection prevention and control (IPC) and fire safety, were completed effectively and showed no concerns.

Oversight of staff training was limited. A new monitoring system was being introduced, which had contributed to delays in refresher training. The service responded promptly during the assessment by scheduling all overdue sessions.

Performance information lacked detail about specific areas that needed attention. This made it difficult for managers to identify trends or take targeted action based on local needs. As a result, opportunities for improvement were sometimes missed.

There was no evidence of negative impact on people using the service. The service maintained secure digital records, made timely statutory notifications, and demonstrated strategic workforce planning, including steps to reduce reliance on agency staff. Work was underway to strengthen governance systems and improve accountability and sustainability.
 

The service 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.

As part of the Manchester Local Care Organisation (MLCO), the service worked in partnership with NHS teams, local authority services, and voluntary sector organisations. This collaborative approach enabled people to access healthcare, maintain daily routines, and stay connected to their community. Staff supported individuals to maintain health diaries, which included records of appointments such as GP visits, dental check-ups, and care reviews. These diaries promoted organisation and independence, and were used to support communication with external professionals, helping ensure relevant information was available when needed.

The service also hosted themed events on topics such as dental hygiene and accessing specialist services. These initiatives, supported by the local authority, helped raise awareness and facilitated smoother transitions between services.

People were actively involved in shaping the service through programmes like Better Outcomes, Better Lives (BOBL), which promoted co-production and empowered individuals to participate in decision-making. Regular surveys and feedback mechanisms further supported meaningful engagement and continuous improvement.
 

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

At the time of the assessment, the service had taken some steps to support learning and improvement, including the formation of a performance team. However, this approach was not yet fully embedded, and there was limited evidence that learning from incidents and complaints consistently led to meaningful changes in practice.

Staff were offered opportunities to reflect through regular supervisions, feedback surveys, and initiatives such as staff culture days and the 'Let's Talk About Race' programme. These created space for open dialogue and promoted inclusion, although it was not always clear how insights from these activities were used to inform wider service improvement.

There were examples of innovation, such as the use of real-time monitoring systems to promote independence and safety, and collaborative work with voluntary organisations and the Manchester Local Care Organisation to improve access to healthcare and community support. However, we did not see clear evidence of how their impact or effectiveness was being evaluated.

Further work was needed to ensure that feedback, incidents, and complaints consistently informed service development and led to measurable improvements in care quality, safety, and outcomes.