Ascend Support (Ealing)

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

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 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 71 (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 promoted a person-centred culture focused on dignity, independence and community inclusion.

The registered manager identified “transparency” as a key service value. Staff described treating people as individuals, supporting daily choices and adapting support to communication and routines.

One staff member summarised the service as person-centred, dedicated and focused on community access. A relative told us “Staff created an environment where the person felt safe, comfortable and valued.”

The service supported open communication and involvement. Systems such as regular contact, feedback processes ensured people, relatives and staff were engaged and able to contribute to care delivery.

Professional feedback supported a respectful and empowering culture. Governance concerns were related to record oversight rather than evidence of a closed culture.

Leaders understood the service, its regulatory responsibilities and the needs of the people supported. They promoted inclusive, person-centred care and were supported by senior leaders.

Leadership decisions prioritised personalised care planning, accessible communication and matching staff to people’s needs. This helped translate the service’s values into day-to-day support.

Staff and relatives described leaders as visible, available and responsive. This supported timely decisions and gave staff confidence to seek guidance when needs changed.

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

The service had clear processes for reporting concerns.

Leaders promoted openness and transparency. They described encouraging staff to speak up about concerns and share information relating to people’s safety and care. This approach supported communication across the service.

Staff said they would report safeguarding concerns or poor practice immediately and felt confident approaching managers. A relative told us, “I find the managers approachable, and I feel they would listen and respond appropriately.”

The provider promoted a fair and inclusive workforce culture in which staff were treated respectfully and supported to contribute fully.

Staff described respectful teamwork and fair access to supervision, development and support. Equality policies set expectations for preventing discrimination and promoting consistent treatment.

The provider’s governance systems did not always provide effective oversight of the quality and safety of support.

Governance checks had not consistently identified inaccurate information, incomplete review histories, unsupported risk ratings or gaps in staff read-and-sign records. Some improvement actions had been marked as complete before all associated shortfalls had been resolved. This reduced confidence in the accuracy of governance reporting and did not provide assurance that staff consistently had access to current and accurate guidance.

Audits, policies and a service improvement plan were in place. However, these systems had not identified recurring inconsistencies across related records or ensured that completed actions had been fully implemented. Reported audit scores of 96% and 94% did not reflect the shortfalls identified during the assessment.

Following our feedback, the provider corrected records, strengthened audit arrangements and supplied staff read-and-sign records to show that relevant updated guidance had been shared with staff. The provider also planned to introduce an electronic care-management system. However, at the end of the assessment, the provider had not demonstrated that the revised governance systems could consistently identify and address shortfalls, or that the improvements would be sustained.

The provider used partnerships with relatives, professionals and community services to coordinate support and strengthen people’s wellbeing and inclusion.

Leaders maintained links with healthcare and behavioural support services and incorporated professional recommendations into support arrangements.

Staff also helped people sustain family relationships and use local community resources. This reduced the risk of fragmented support and enabled people to remain connected people and places important to them.

A relative said, “Since moving to the service, wellbeing, happiness, stability and quality of life have improved significantly.”

People received coordinated care that reflected input from those involved in their support. This reduced the risk of gaps in care and helped ensure their needs were met effectively.

The provider used feedback, audit findings and external input to identify priorities and drive service improvement.

Learning led to changes in staff development, communication, policy access and care-record oversight. A planned electronic care-management system was intended to improve access to current information and strengthen audit assurance.

Managers acted promptly on inspection feedback and shared learning across the organisation. This showed capacity to improve, although the provider still needed to demonstrate that changes were consistently embedded and sustained.