Equal People Mencap

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a positive person-centred culture. People using the service had developed the mission statement and values of the organisation. They met regularly to review these to ensure these were still applicable and they were happy with them. People and their relatives thought the service was good and met their needs. A relative explained, “It’s been really great for our family. There is such good care. It is important and gives us peace of mind.” Staff told us they thought people received a good service and they enjoyed their work. A staff member commented, “It is my pleasure supporting people and seeing them develop their confidence and independence.”

Managers had the skills and experience to run the service. However, some staff felt managers lacked compassion. Most staff acknowledged managers provided good support for people using the service, but some staff did not always feel supported. Comments from staff included, “I do not always feel managers are approachable” and “Managers are not supportive or sympathetic.” We shared this feedback with the management team so they could look at ways to resolve these concerns.

The manager was in the process of registering with CQC. They were undertaking a qualification in care management. The manager was supported by others working in different parts of the service and the chief executive. They told us they had regular contact with the board of trustees. The management team had worked in different roles in the service before becoming managers.

Relatives told us they knew who the managers were and could contact them when they needed. Their comments included, “I have a good rapport with [managers]” and “They manage everything really well and I can call if I need anything.”

The were procedures to enable people using the service, staff and others to speak up were not always effective. Staff told us they could speak up about concerns relating to people using the service and these were acted on. However, they were not always able to raise concerns about their own wellbeing. Some staff told us when they discussed their views these were dismissed and they did not feel valued. We shared this feedback with the management team to help them reflect on this and find ways to ensure staff felt supported and empowered to speak up.

Some staff did not feel their individual needs were met. They told us they were not supported with personal needs or flexible working. However, managers told us staff were able to request time off, and they had procedures to help support staff with religious and cultural requirements, for example supporting fasting staff to finish work early. Managers told us they supported staff to access records and training with specialist equipment when needed. For example, speech activated software.

There were a large number of volunteers working with the provider. Managers told us they encouraged people with a disability and mental health needs to work with them through volunteering and then paid work if this is what they wanted.

There were effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. Managers completed a range of audits and checks. People using the service, relatives and staff were invited to complete surveys. The provider had systems for learning from things that went wrong and making improvements based on their investigations and feedback from others.

The provider worked in partnership with other organisations and professionals. Managers had regular meetings with commissioners and the local authority representatives. They discussed the service and the needs of the local community. Staff worked closely with healthcare teams to ensure people could access healthcare services.

Managers told us they liaised with other local Mencap groups to share ideas and best practice.

Comments from external professionals included, “I can only report a positive experience from my involvement with this agency. They are always very willing to work collaboratively to ensure that the best possible support is provided for our young people” and “Overall, my experience has been positive. Staff are generally supportive, work well with health professionals, and are committed to helping the people they support.”

There were systems to learn and improve. They worked with external partners to provide a range of training for people using the service and staff.

The provider was involved in a project to improve people’s access to local dental services. People were involved in sharing feedback about what was important to them. As a result, improvements were made for dental surgeries who signed up to the initiative. This included better signage, allowing people more time and providing better information. The management team told us they were committed to this kind of work within the local community.