Essence Supported Living limited Also known as Essence House

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 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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider held staff meetings which gave senior staff the opportunity to share important information. Staff also had the opportunity in these meetings to raise matters of importance to them. A member of staff told us, “Yes we have team meetings, we talk about how we can improve the service.” The provider supported staff’s equality and diversity, for example, through shifts allowing staff time off for religious festivals and there was an equality and diversity policy in place to guide practice in this area.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had a registered manager in place who, along with the nominated individual, took responsibility for the day to day running of the service. They were supported by a consultant employed to help with developing care plans and other documentation. Staff told us it was a good place to work, and they received support from their managers. A member of staff said, “[Nominated individual] is a good manager, they listen to us, any concerns we have they sort it out.” Another staff member said, “[Registered manager] is good, they are helpful.”

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

The provider had a complaints procedure which gave people the opportunity to raise concerns in a formal way, although the registered manager told us there had not been any complaints. People confirmed this. A relative said, “There are not really any concerns.” They added, “[Nominated individual] said I can always phone up, and they will be happy to help out.” The provider sought feedback from people about their care. For example, there had been a survey of people carried out. This received positive feedback. A relative had written, “I would like to thank the carers, they do a good job.” There were systems that enable staff to speak up, including team meetings and 1 to 1 supervision.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they were treated well by their employer. A member of staff said, “It’s very nice [workplace]. They [management] look after you and give you training.” Staff recruitment was carried out in line with good practice in relation to the Equalities Act 2010. Policies were in place to guide practice in this area, including an equality and diversity policy.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place, but they were not always effective. For example, they had failed to identify that criminal records checks had not been carried out on care staff or that care plans and risk assessments were not as comprehensive as they could have been. The provider took steps to address issues we found shortly after our inspection visit.

Quality assurance systems included various audits and spot checks of staff. Spot checks involved one of the senior staff carrying out an unannounced check on a member of staff as they carried out their duties. The nominated individual told us they carried out phone monitoring with people but added they did not keep any record of this. This meant they were unable to evidence this happened. However, people confirmed this happened. A relative said, “[Nominated individual] gave me a call, checking if everything was OK.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked in partnership with its staff, people who used the service and their relatives to deliver person-centred care. The nominated individual told us they attended provider forums run by the local authority. This provided opportunities to share best practice and keep up to date with developments in the care sector.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

Staff received regular training and 1 to 1 supervision to help them develop in their role and provide continuous learning. The nominated individual told us their priorities for the future were to grow the business and provide more staff training, along with developing greater use of digital record keeping.