Gabs Healthcare

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 which confirmed 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 newly registered 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.

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

This service scored 32 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. We saw little relevant evidence of a shared direction or culture for the organisation. The provider had articulated a vision for the service but there were no systems or processes in place support its implementation.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. There was limited evidence the provider or registered manager had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead the organisation effectively. There was limited assurance about systems and processes in place to ensure services for children, people with learning disabilities and autistic people were delivered safely and effectively and were responsive to people’s changing needs.

We were not assured there were systems and processes in place to support a culture where speaking up was supported and people’s voices would be heard. There was a whistle-blowing policy in place and members of staff told us they felt valued, however, there were no systems or processes in place which provided us with assurance the leadership and management of the organisation created a culture of openness and transparency.

The provider told us they valued diversity in their workforce and members of staff did not report any concerns about inclusivity in the workplace. However, we did not receive any assurances policies and processes were in place to support the development of an inclusive organisational culture which supported diversity.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. We did not see evidence of systems or processes in place which supported a culture of quality monitoring and continuous service improvement. We were not assured the provider carried out audits, reviews and checks throughout the service to ensure it was safe, effective and responsive.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did, however, share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement but this was limited and we were not assured there were systems and processes in place to support this as a standardised organisational approach.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. There was limited evidence the provider had systems and processes in place to embed learning and continuous learning throughout the organisation. The registered manager indicated knowledge of local professional forums but there was no evidence of skills development or implementation of learning from these meetings.