The Shores – Dorset 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 1 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 system of accountability in place and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for staff to support good governance. There was an on-site manager and clinical director whowere responsible forensuring the smooth running of the SARCand compliance with protocols. They were supported by the provider’s group medical director and chief clinical officer. At the time of our inspection an interim manager was in post, but a new permanent manager had recently been recruited and was due to start in May 2026.

A comprehensive range of policies and procedures were tailored to the needs of the SARC and were subject to regular review and update. Staff had easy access to these via the provider’s intranet site.

Theprovider’sclinical governance boardmet monthly to scrutinise a range of data from across the service including audit results, patient safety incidents, complaints and national alerts to ensure effective oversight of the quality and safety of patient care. Ariskregister was in place which was reviewed regularly to highlight ongoing risks such as staffing levels, forensic science regulator compliance, and cleaning procedures.

A rolling yearly audit plan had been developed to assess key areas of performance,and we viewed check lists which were used to ensure that essential daily and weekly tasks had been completed.

All sexual offence examiners’ notes were audited daily by another colleague to ensure patients’ needs had been fully assessed, and forensic procedures had been followed correctly.

Levels of incident reporting had increased significantly in the previous few months to our inspection, demonstrating a much-improved awareness by staff about what incidents and areas of non-conformance needed to be reported. Learning from these was shared across the staff team via the provider’s in-house bulletin ‘The Beat’ and regular staff ‘lunch and learns.’

Partnership working was effective and staff attended weekly RASSO (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences) meetings, quarterly commissioning meetings and 6 monthly meetings with victim support[AC1] groups. These forums had been useful in highlighting issues affecting the service and had identified a significant discrepancy in the number of sexual assaults reported to the police, compared to the number referred to the SARC. Partners were working together to resolve this.

All staffreceived regular supervision, appraisal and peer reviewtoensure their practice met professional standards.Their competency to perform a range of tasks was regularly assessed to identify any training needs. Stafftoldusthey enjoyed their work citing close teamwork, supportive managers and having the time with patients to fully meet their needs. One staff member reported that they never felt ‘out of the loop’ despite only working 4 days a month, indicating that communications systems were good.

There was an annual anonymous staff survey so that the provider could gather feedback about staff engagement, job satisfaction, and workplace culture. Freedom to Speak Up Champions were available if staff wanted to raise any concerns.

Feedback to improve the service was actively sought from patients, and response rates were reasonable.

[AC1]does this need capitalisation?

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.