Parry Healthcare Wiltshire

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant the service was not consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created did not always promote high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 62 (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, 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. This vision was shared with staff during their induction. Team meeting records showed that the provider discussed and shared information that supported their direction and culture. However not all staff were clear on what the vision was. This meant the provider could not be sure that staff were working in line with the vision.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Staff told us that managers were visible and approachable. Specific comments included 'The registered manager is a good person' and 'The manager listens and is a good communicator.'

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had a freedom to speak policy for staff to access. Staff we spoke to were not clear on what freedom to speak up meant. However, they were able to tell us how they could complain, and mangers listened.

The provider 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 registered manager told us they sent cards to staff during celebrated religious festivals and supported staff to have time for their religious beliefs. Flexible working agreements were in place for staff who required it. Staff told us they felt well supported.

Although the provider had clear responsibilities and roles, they did not have a clear understanding of good governance. They did not always have systems to monitor information shared with staff. This meant they could not always ensure that staff had read appropriate information to enable them to support people in the correct way.

The provider did not always share information with others in a timely manner. We requested information as part of this assessment, but it was not shared in a timely manner. Not all policies had been reviewed or fully completed. We saw that the business continuity plan had not been reviewed and did not contain full information. This meant they could not ensure they were fully prepared for adverse events.

The provider had identified learning and created an action plan. However, timescales to address the shortfalls were not identified. This meant the registered manager was not able to ensure they took the appropriate actions within the timeframes they had set.

Not all consent records had been completed in full. For example, we saw that a person had signed a consent form, but this form was not clear if they were agreeing to consent for care and treatment or not. This meant the provider could not be sure the person had consented to all areas of their care.

Visit records showed that staff were late to visit people. However, this information had not been analysed to identify impact on people who use the service or identify areas to improve and reduce late visits. This meant the provider could not be sure they had identified areas for improvement and ensure they were providing support in a timely manner.

The provider 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. We were told by other services the provider communicated well with them. We saw that the provider communicated with other healthcare professionals such as occupational therapists, to ensure people received the care they needed.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. We saw records that identified learning from areas such as complaints and incidents. However, feedback we received from people and relatives showed that improvements were not always made.

Discussions with the registered manager showed they gave focus to learning and improvement. They told us how they were researching the use of electric bicycles to support staff to navigate the rural area and enable those who did not drive to access work with them. However, action plans which were created did not ensure that actions identified would be completed in a timely manner