Wisdom Support Services Ltd

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to 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 did not always demonstrate a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. The registered manager told us they had an understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights, and the service had not prioritised safe, high-quality, compassionate care.

Feedback from the staff we spoke with about the culture of the service was not always positive. Some staff told us there was a poor relationship with senior managers, low staff morale, and inconsistent communication. When staff feel unsupported or unfairly treated, it can impact their ability to perform their roles effectively.

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.

We received mixed feedback from staff about senior management. Staff did not always speak positively about the leadership and management within the service. Some staff told us they were able to raise concerns to senior management, that were dealt with. For example, staff said, “Senior managers are available”, “I can approach managers at any time” and “Senior management is good, they are accessible at any time.”

However, other staff comments included, “Communication is not good with senior management”, “We are not always listened to, “Senior managers do not always talk to us respectfully and when we report an issue they do not act and do not resolve issues”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Support plans were developed collaboratively and reflected people’s consent and preferences. They were person-centred and included people’s characteristics, beliefs, and interests, such as hobbies, likes, and dislikes.

The provider had a registered manager in post. Relatives told us they had regular communication with staff of all levels.

The provider had an up-to-date whistleblowing policy in place. This was also supported by policies and information supporting staff to raise concerns externally if required.

While some staff said they felt able to raise concerns with their immediate line managers and felt supported at that level, others told us they did not always feel able to speak up if they had concerns or something went wrong and reported a lack of support from senior management. One staff member said, “I can approach senior managers at any time.” Whereas another staff member said, “I can speak to line managers, but leadership is not available or seem interested.”

People and relatives felt their voice was heard and could raise concerns at any time.

The provider had failed to always implement an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The importance of promoting an inclusive workplace, where staff were treated equally and fairly had not been achieved.

We received mixed feedback from staff about being treated fairly and equally. Some staff of all backgrounds did not always feel valued by senior managers. Staff we spoke with us told us, “Diversity is not always visible and there can be some discrimination of staff groups” and “Senior managers do not talk to us respectfully and when we report an issue they do not act and do not resolve issues.” Another staff member said, “I feel all staff are treated the same and equally.”

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.

Improvement was needed in the governance and management oversight of the service and record keeping.The provider carried out internal audits; however, these were not robust as they and had not identified the issues we found at this assessment, relating to risk management, safe environments, recruitment processes, storage of medicines and deprivation of liberty practices. There was a lack of measures in place to obtain feedback from staff.

We discussed the shortfalls we found at this inspection with the registered manager. They were receptive to the feedback and to making improvements

Following the assessment the provider had submitted an action plan to address the shortfalls. We will follow this up at our next assessment.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated with them. The provider and staff worked with a wide range of relevant external stakeholders and agencies across learning disability and mental health services. To support the provision of people’s care. The provider worked in partnership with other healthcare professionals such mental health and learning disability teams, social workers and community nurses.

The provider did not always consistently prioritise continuous learning, innovation, or improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative approaches to delivering equality of experience, outcomes, and quality of life for people, or actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Although the provider recognised the importance of learning from accidents and incidents, and these were discussed in team meetings and staff supervisions. We found that audits were not always being used effectively to drive learning or strengthen quality assurance processes.

Further work was required to embed a culture of learning, improvement, and innovation at a local level. However, the registered manager and management team demonstrated commitment to addressing these shortfalls and driving positive change.