GreyInsights

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 inadequate. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to poor governance systems. This meant systems were not robust enough to demonstrate the service was consistently managed well.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The management team did not have a clear shared vision and culture which was based on transparency, equality and human rights. Grey Insights’ vision states: “To help reduce significant risk associated with lack or inadequate support in the community.” However, recent events within the service revealed a failure to uphold this vision. The provider did not ensure people were kept safe or protected from harm, nor did they promote equality or uphold individuals’ human rights. This indicates a serious disconnect between the organisation’s stated values and its operational practices.

Rather than prioritising their vision, the provider neglected to examine and address the underlying culture of the organisation. As a result, systemic issues persisted, contributing to unsafe environments and poor outcomes for the people they were meant to support. This failure to align practice with purpose highlights the urgent need for cultural change, stronger leadership accountability, and a renewed commitment to safeguarding and human rights.

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.

The provider had failed to ensure they had leaders that had the skills to recognise where improvements were required to the culture of the support being provided. We found that there were failings in the provider oversight of the culture of the service, including ensuring that they met their regulatory requirements.

People’s human rights were not embraced and, in some cases, did not always focus on how to enable people to live their best life and be a part of their community. There has been changes that meant the provider was taking step to improvement the systems.

Staff felt that they leaders were supportive and compassionate towards them. One staff member said, “GreyInsights Ltd is doing a great job supporting and guiding staff to provide person-centred care safely and respectfully, which encourages service users to be as independent as possible. I believe GreyInsights is always looking for ways to improve the services they provide to both residents and staff.”

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

Staff felt able to speak up about concerns they had, and they were listened to and felt action was taken.

Relatives and people did not always have a forum where they could openly discuss concerns they may have. Relatives felt that they could contact the management team if they required to on a casual basis.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. The provider was working towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff said they felt the leaders, and the provider were fair and listened to them.

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. There was evidence that the provider had shown an inability to effectively action in relation to concerns raised by partner agencies and did not take the opportunity to learn lessons to improve the service.

The provider lacked oversight of certain aspects of the care and governance systems were not robust enough to capture the significant risks identified during the inspection; including the culture of the service, and the care records being completed for people using the service. As part of the inspection, we had identified areas of improvement, which had not been found as part of their governance systems. For example, improve staff training and skills, infection prevention control, epilepsy management, restrictive practice and safe management of medicines.

The provider failed to meet best practice guidance set out in Right support, Right care, Right culture. With in the report, we have identified examples where people were not respected or had choice and independence over their lives.

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.

Further development is to be considered as to how the provider can develop their presence within the local community.

Professionals we spoke to shared they felt the provider had collaborated with them and were willing to engage in joined working, however shared that there had been delays in information sharing in the past.

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 had previously been a lack of openness within the service, which contributed to a closed culture. For example, incidents relating to physical abuse, restraint, medicine management had not been appropriately notified or in a timely manner to relevant bodies, limiting transparency and oversight. However, since the inspection had concluded, there has been a clear improvement in information sharing. The management team has taken action to address these concerns, demonstrating a commitment to fostering a more open and accountable culture.