Dynamic Support

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 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had exceptionally 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 always did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The management all had an incredibly positive, informed and compassionate way of managing the service. Both the registered manager and those that supported them understood the legislation and best practice they were managing the service within. They used this as a vehicle to ensure people had high quality, safe, person-centred care. The registered manager truly led by example to create a knowledgeable, inclusive and caring environment.

The management were writing bespoke training using their knowledge to cover aspects of support and understanding. For example, safeguarding training that contained real-life examples of scenarios that had occurred improved staff discussions and learning. Also, they wrote training, so staff better understood the well led aspect of regulation and inspection. All staff were positive about the level of support, training and compassion the registered manager demonstrated.

People had an amazing relationship with the registered manager and other senior staff. Every person greeted the registered manager as though they were a friend. At all times the registered manager was aware of professional boundaries whilst greeting each person in their preferred manner. They knew people and all their wishes and needs without having to look anything up, demonstrating an incredible knowledge of the service.

Relatives echoed what we were observing about the management of the service. Comments included, “[The registered manager] is lovely. If there is a problem, I pick up the phone. She would sort it”, “She is lovely. I really get on well with her…she listened to [name’s] needs and adapted. More than happy” and, “She is friendly and kind to them and meets all their needs.” The relatives then told us about the quality of care this had produced. One relative said, “Higher than higher quality [care]. Fifteen out of 10.”

The registered manager ran an inclusive service which respected every person and staff member individuality. They worked hard to ensure everyone felt part of the team and embraced differences. For example, a staff member who approached the service to be a volunteer was offered a job and things such as training were adapted to meet their needs. Likewise, the registered manager was not afraid to act if the quality and safety of people’s care was compromised. All of this followed best practice. The action always focussed on improvement and learning over penalising actions.

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

Systems were in place to foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up. All staff members were aware of who they should speak with if they were concerns. Comments included, “I can speak out” and, “I feel I can speak up to the management.”

Staff were able to talk us through how they could identify concerns in people who may not be able to communicate verbally. All staff members felt action would be taken if they spoke up. They were also aware of where they could take their concerns externally.

All people that could, were able to tell us which staff or where they would take a concern in the organisation. One person demonstrated how comfortable they were to speak out by raising concerns with the registered manager. The registered manager followed the system to manage this demonstrating it works to keep people safe. Other people would name who they would speak with if upset. Relatives confirmed that action was always taken if they spoke up and they were confident the management were transparent.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support leading to a positive quality of life. They always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Systems were in place to manage the service, ensuring people receiving high-quality, person-centred and safe care. The registered manager led the management team and ensured learning and improvement cycles were driving the organisation. When it was possible these were co-produced with the staff members and people. For example, the management had just run “well led” sessions. These explained what good governance looked like and had staff contributing their thoughts in how to improve the service for people further.

Governance was strengthened by external assurance being sought. This was to ensure the management were providing the best possible care and support for people. The registered manager had sourced a care consultant with experience of regulation to review the service. The consultant worked with the management identifying areas for improvement as well as celebrating what was going well. For all recommendations action had been taken demonstrating the management were supporting the sustainability of the service.

Governance systems were detailed and highlighted all areas of improvement identified during the inspection. There were plans in place or action was being taken to ensure people were receiving high-quality, sustainable care. Every staff member was clear of their roles and responsibilities in the organisation. All worked as a team led by the registered manager to ensure people had a good quality of life and were kept safe.

Accountability was important for all, and when shortfalls occurred action was taken. The registered manager appropriately challenged other health and social care professionals. This prevented people receiving care that was contradictory to them leading a positive quality of life that was person-centred.

Regular questionnaires would go to staff members, people and relatives. Actions were taken because of feedback they received. For example, staff members feedback led to changing the language and approach used following an incident. This promoted a more learning culture over punitive approach. Feedback was always sought from other companies the provider worked with to support improvement.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.