Archived: Independent Options Central Support Service

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 Inadequate.

This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 25 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was no evidence of how leaders shared organisational strategy with staff and how feedback from people and staff was gathered to support their contribution to meeting organisational goals.

Staff and people’s relatives shared their concerns about lack of transparency within the organisation and a culture where issues were not used as learning opportunities. Both staff and people’s relatives were reluctant to speak up and raise their concerns. One person’s relative told us, “I have raised concerns about my loved one, now staff won’t speak to me.” Another relative told us,” In the past I could raise concerns but lately the communication isn’t good.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were not always visible within the organisation and were not acting effectively where poor care and poor outcomes for people were identified.

The registered manager did not engage well with staff, people and their relatives. Both staff and people’s relatives shared their concerns regarding leaders of the organisation including the registered manager. One staff member told us, “The registered manager and the leadership team, they look after each other. They are not approachable.” Another staff member told us, “Management can be very cliquey.”

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to support speaking up. However, these were not always effective. Staff and people’s representatives told us they did not feel they could always speak up and raise concerns and that the provider did not support an open andtransparent culture. One relative told us,” I raised concerns with the registered manager and was told not to interfere.” Another relative told us, “No, it’s not managed well. We expect to be involved but we are not, and we don’t see management. We don’t know what plans they have regarding training or care for our loved one. We expect to have reviews and them to take our thoughts into consideration, but they don’t.”

The provider did not value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

There was a diverse workforce in place. However, there was no evidence how the provider supported equality and diversity within the organisation specifically for people who work for them. Some staff told us they experienced some discrimination whilst working for the provider but there was no evidence of what if any support to staff was provided.

The provider did not 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 securely with others when appropriate.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our assessment. We have received mixed feedback regarding the registered manager from staff and relatives. One staff member told us, “The registered manager and the leadership team is not approachable, they are not nice.” Another staff member told us,” I do receive support when I need it.” One relative told us,” Yes, on the whole I think it is managed well.” Another relative told us,” There is definitely a management issue here.” Stakeholders and partners shared their concerns regarding people’s care and support. One stakeholder told us, “The feedback from families clearly indicates systemic issues within Independent Options relating to leadership, management, communication, financial governance, and quality of care. These issues have resulted in compromised resident safety, well-being, and satisfaction, along with significant distress to families and staff.”

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

Stakeholders and partners shared some concerns regarding the provider and the care and support provided to people. One stakeholder told us, “It can be difficult to get responses to queries from managers.” Another stakeholder told us, “There were complaints about poor communication, unresponsiveness to calls and e-mails, and a lack of management presence.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider did not always identify concerns and learning opportunities in a timely manner and when this took place it was not effective. For example, regarding protecting people from financial abuse.

Learning from when things went wrong was not analysed to improve care and support delivered to people. An open and transparent culture was not supported within the organisation where both staff and people’s relatives were concern about speaking up and raising their concerns.