Hounslow Supported Living Services

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 79 (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 and person-centred culture at the service. There were clear values. Staff understood and believed in these. Staff felt supported and enjoyed their work. Managers led by example. Comments from staff included, “This is a good company to work for. We make a difference”, “The values are right and we are really trying to listen to families and the people we support” and “The company values the workforce and supports progression.”

External professionals told us they thought the service was well run. A professional commented, “The organisation is open and approachable, always seeking to listen, improve and find solutions.”

Relatives told us people received good quality care with comments that included, “There is a family feel, and everyone is loved” and “Words do not express how deeply grateful I am to the service.”

Staff consistently demonstrated proactive support to champion people’s rights. The organisation placed value on listening to the voices of people who used the service and embedding these in how the service was run. There were regular meetings for people using the service and other meetings for people and their relatives. The views of people were shared with senior leaders and helped to improve the service and make changes. For example, leading to the creating of new community groups.

There were capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders. The registered manager oversaw the whole services supported by managers for the different schemes. They worked well together as a team, sharing ideas and learning. All managers undertook a range of training to help them understand about best practice for managing care settings. People using the service knew the managers. We witnessed positive and friendly interactions which showed mutual respect between managers and people using the service. Staff told us they felt well supported by managers. Their comments included, “There is a positive approach to leadership” and “The manager is very open to suggestions.”

External professionals told us they thought managers led the service well. Their comments included, “I find the management team to be responsive, transparent and willing to work collaboratively” and “[Registered manager] works exceptionally hard in [their] efforts for the residents and their families.”

Relatives knew the management team and said they were available and helpful. Their comments included, “I can talk to [manager]. [They] phone us spontaneously and are easy to contact”, “[Manager] creates a friendly atmosphere”, “[Manager] is such anexceptionallycompassionate, talented and thoughtful manager” and “I can tell how much all the staff greatly respect and admire [manager] because of [their]exceptional leadership and dedication.”

There were systems to enable staff and others to speak up when they felt something was wrong. Staff told us they knew what to do if they had concerns. They explained they felt confident speaking up. Managers were open, honest and transparent. When something went wrong, managers apologised to people and explained the actions they were taking to prevent this happening again.

There were policies and procedures to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us their individual needs and diversity needs were respected. The registered manager supported staff with flexible working arrangements.

The provider created several wellbeing groups for staff. These included a menopause group, LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer) group, groups for different cultures, religions, neurodiversity and disabilities. Staff reported these were supportive and helped to drive changes within the organisation. There were representative staff champions who helped to ensure managers and senior leaders understood the different needs of staff.

Staff and people using the service celebrated different festivals and special events.

The provider’s systems for assessing risk had not always been operated effectively. We identified issues with records relating to medicines management, as well as risks within people’s home environments. Whilst there was no direct impact for people, the provider’s own audits and checks had not identified these. Following our visits to the supported living schemes, the provider addressed the concerns. They also developed systems to better identify these risks in the future to help prevent the incidents reoccurring.

The provider had a range of systems to audit the quality of the service. These included peer quality checks where people using the service visited other schemes to review the service and gather feedback from people. Staff completed a range of audits, and the provider asked stakeholders to give written feedback about their experiences. When the provider identified areas for improvement, they developed plans to changes. An external professional told us, “Where there have been negative issues, the management team have acted swiftly, and kept relevant people updated. This has demonstrated their compliance with duty of candour.”

Staff worked in partnership with others to help ensure people received safe and person-centred care. They liaised with health and social care professionals to meet individual needs. Comments from external professionals included, “[Staff] are good advocates for people” and “[Staff] communicate clearly and work in partnership with us.”

Staff and managers worked with partners to help promote best practice and ensure others understood about this. For example, taking part in presentations for external stakeholders and partnering with local education and employment providers.

The provider worked with partners to run different schemes designed to help people develop skills, and to enjoy themselves. These included a gardening group, cookery courses, arts and crafts and walking groups. These were open to anyone using the service. Staff helped people identify what was most important for them. They considered long term goals. For example, some people were working towards employment. Staff supported them to develop their skills and confidence in their chosen area of work.

External professionals recognised the exceptional work of the organisation in this area. A professional commented, “The activities that they engage residents with are fabulous.”

The provider had been part of a drive to get local businesses such as cafes and libraries to sign up to a scheme offering safe spaces for people who may be anxious, scared or at risk when out in the community.

The provider promoted learning, improvement and innovation. They provided a wide range of training opportunities for staff and people using the service. Staff who were experts in particular areas helped to train and support other staff to improve practice.

There was a plan to develop the service within the local area. The provider had systems to welcome ideas from all stakeholders, including people who used the service. The registered manager explained how people and their relatives had given ideas for improvement. Some of these had been implemented for everyone across the whole service. For example, developing bespoke training courses, improving policies and procedures, and improving access to technology and ways to use this.

There were local sustainability plans which considered environmental impacts and how they could reduce everyone’s carbon footprint.