The Glade Sexual Assault Referral Centre-Telford

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 1 quality statement under the well-led key question. The service benefited from committed and visible leadership, a positive culture and effective audit systems.

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.

There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the service. A dedicated SARC manager held overall responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the service and for ensuring compliance with operational policies and procedures. We found the manager to be knowledgeable, experienced and committed to delivering a high-quality service for both patients and staff. She was supported by a regional contracts director and an associate head of healthcare, who provided additional managerial and clinical oversight.

A comprehensive suite of policies and procedures was in place to support the delivery of safe and effective care. Staff could readily access organisational policies through the provider's intranet system. In addition, relevant guidance produced by the FFLM was formally reviewed every 6 months to ensure local practice remained aligned with current national standards and best practice.

Regular clinical learning bulletins were circulated to keep staff informed of learning opportunities and changes to guidance. These included case-based learning scenarios to support professional development. We reviewed a bulletin issued in July 2026, which covered the assessment of head injuries and the action required when patients reported dizziness or an inability to recall parts of an assault. This helped to ensure staff maintained up-to-date knowledge and applied consistent clinical practice.

A comprehensive annual audit programme had been developed to monitor key aspects of service delivery, including staff training, health and safety, medicines management and the quality of patient records. We also reviewed a range of daily, weekly and monthly checklists used by the SARC manager to monitor operational performance and ensure essential tasks had been completed.

The service had a clear incident reporting process that staff understood and used well. Staff told us they felt confident raising concerns and reporting incidents. We reviewed the provider's non-conformance log, which contained reports relating to a range of issues including record-keeping deficiencies, medicines management concerns, booking errors and disruptions to service delivery. The breadth of incidents reported demonstrated a positive and open reporting culture. Staff told us that reporting incidents was actively encouraged, forms were easy to complete and viewed as an important part of learning and service improvement.

There was an up-to-date business continuity plan in place, which outlined the arrangements for maintaining critical services and ensuring the prompt and effective recovery of operations following any incident that could affect service delivery.

The provider maintained a current risk register, which was regularly reviewed and updated. Staffing challenges and associated risks were recorded and monitored. Local managers were responsible for updating risks, with oversight provided by regional contract directors. Risks were discussed and reviewed monthly through local management governance meetings to ensure appropriate mitigation and escalation where required.

At a local level, we reviewed a range of detailed and up-to-date risk assessments covering key operational and health and safety risks, ligature risks, sexual harassment, slips, trips and falls, and contractors working on site. These assessments had been subject to regular review and provided staff with clear guidance on managing identified risks.

Crisis workers regularly worked alone on site between patient examinations. A comprehensive lone-working risk assessment had been completed, and appropriate control measures were in place to minimise risks and support staff safety and wellbeing. Staff we spoke with understood the lone-working arrangements and described feeling well supported when working independently.

Patient feedback was actively sought and used to drive service improvement. The responses we reviewed demonstrated consistently high levels of satisfaction with the service. Patients frequently described staff as caring, professional and reassuring. Feedback from patients was acted upon, including requests for gluten-free snacks and a wider range of alternatives to hot drinks. A "You Said, We Did" display was prominently displayed within patient area, demonstrating how patient feedback had informed service improvements.

The provider demonstrated a strong commitment to staff wellbeing. Regular wellbeing surveys were undertaken, and wellbeing ambassadors had been appointed across each region. Staff had access to 4 trauma risk management (TRiM) practitioners, an employee assistance programme and additional wellbeing funding. The provider also conducted 2 staff surveys each year, including a dedicated wellbeing survey. A staff council met quarterly and included representation from staff networks and board-level directors.

Staff consistently described the service as well-led and told us that senior leaders were visible, approachable and supportive. We received particularly positive comments about the new manager who was described as experienced, competent and already implementing positive changes to the service.

Staff spoke positively about the culture within the service, highlighting strong teamwork and having sufficient time to provide compassionate, patient-centred care. One staff member described the service as "one of the most supportive environments" in which they had worked. Another staff member told us they had greatly appreciated the support and flexibility provided by the manager in helping them manage a long-term medical condition while at work.

All staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities under the duty of candour. The provider had supporting guidance and a template letter available to help ensure the duty of candour was applied consistently when required.

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.