Sahara Parkside

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our assessment which meant there was lack of leadership. The provider’s systems and processes were not always effective in assessing, monitoring and improving the quality of the service. This was a breach of Regulation 17, good governance.

This service scored 54 (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 and actively encouraged their staff to be part of this. The deputy manager told us how they observed staff practice, addressing issues as they arose and in supervision. They told us how they conduct walk arounds between the flats to observe care delivered and check on the welfare of people and the daily records to make sure they are completed.

Staff were complimentary about the way the service was being managed, staff we spoke with felt the service was heading in the right direction and people living in the services were benefiting from the approach of the deputy manager.

There was no registered manager in place at the time of this assessment and this had also been the case when we last visited in 2021. We received mixed feedback from health professionals about the management oversight of the service. One professional told us that whilst there had been positive changes but noted the frequency in changes of management.

Another professional told us the number of management changes had impacted communication and consistency with requests for information not being provided quickly enough.

The provider had a deputy manager in post at the time of the assessment. They understood the context in which they delivered care and support. They had worked in the service for many years and there were positive relationships between them and the people living in the service.

Staff told us they were supported, particularly by the deputy manager who was always willing to listen to the concerns and issues they raised. A member of staff said they were rewarded for their efforts by the provider, and they felt respected by their deputy manager. As part of our assessment, we spoke to several families, one told us, “The deputy manager is good, they are supportive and they take things on board.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. We saw feedback from people living in the service which indicated people were generally happy with the service. They talked about the positive relationships with the deputy manager and the staff team and said they were happy with the care they received. The provider had a whistleblowing policy and information located in the staff room. Staff told us about this policy and were able to tell us, under what circumstances it would be used.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. The provider made efforts to recruit a workforce that reflected the religious and cultural diversity of the group of people it supported. Staff told us they felt included and supported. One member of staff said, “There is good training, and we feel really supported by the provider, they give us advice and we are able to give them advice on how we think things should be done.”

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

The provider’s systems and processes had failed to ensure risks were always identified and mitigated because staff did not have the skills to manage some risks and information within people’s care records was not up to date.

The provider supported people who could pose a risk to themselves and others, and records kept by the service detailed staff getting hurt whilst providing care. The provider had not monitored and managed this risk effectively. They had failed to ensure staff had up to date and relevant training to equip them with the necessary skills to protect themselves and others. We discussed this with the provider, and they made alternative arrangements for staff to be appropriately trained. Improvements were also needed to ensure that family and carer views were appropriately sought when best interests decisions were being made on behalf of people using the service.

We received mixed feedback about working in partnership with others. One professional said that important information relating to recommendations made by health practitioners were not always implemented. They went on to add that the provider was accepting placements from other boroughs and not informing the local health team which hindered planning and transitioning of people.

One professional we spoke to told us that they felt that the home was safe. They said, “Communication has improved, and staff now have contact with community services to prevent hospital admissions.”

Staff completed appropriate mandatory training. The service reviewed incidents and discussed the learning from them. Most of the training offered by the provider was tailored to meet the needs of people living in the service and staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of people’s needs to us. However, improvements were needed to ensure all staff undertook training to manage and reduce incidents of violent behaviour.

The provider had a plan of redecoration and refurbishment as and when necessary to ensure continuous improvements were made to people’s home environments.