The Blue Sky Centre - Nuneaton SARC

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

We assessed one quality statement under the well-led key question. Governance systems were good and ensured patients received a safe, well managed and effective service. There was a focus on continuous improvement and staff were supported in their work.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The provider had a clear governance structure in place which showed lines of responsibility and accountability for the service. There was a dedicated manager and deputy who were responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the SARC and compliance with protocols. They were well supported by the provider’s regional managers and an associate head of healthcare.

Comprehensive policies, procedures and risk assessments to support the management of the service were available and updated regularly. The provider’s clinical quality governance board scrutinised data from across all their services to ensure good oversight of the quality and safety of patient care.

NHS commissioners told us that the SARC was meeting all its forensic timescales and performance indicators ensuring better chances of criminal justice and health outcomes for patients.

A rolling yearly audit plan had been developed to assess key areas of performance such as staff training, health and safety, medicines management, and the quality of patient records. There were regular clinical site visits from senior managers to check compliance with various aspects of the service. In addition to this, we viewed check lists which were used effectively by the manager to ensure a range of daily and weekly tasks had been completed.

There was a strong emphasis on continuous improvement. Inter SARC comparison exercises had been introduced across all the provider’s sites. Staff were presented with a particular case scenario exercise, and their responses were assessed. Results and takeaway messages from these were shared across staff teams to ensure conformity to protocols and procedures.

Staff attended the local Rape Scrutiny panel, a multi-agency forum where both successful and unsuccessful prosecutions were discussed so that learning could be shared to drive improvement.

Staff proactively engaged with partners to resolve concerns and improve the service. For example, additional meetings had been set up with police colleagues to increase the number of patient bookings throughout the whole day, rather than just between the hours of 9am and 5pm.

All staff received regular supervision, appraisal and peer review to ensure their practice met professional standards and identify any training needs. Staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt supported by their managers.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.