Herts 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 national governance framework in place which included policies, protocols and procedures that were accessible to all staff members on the organisation’s intranet site.

Monitoring data was reported quarterly to the provider’s senior team and the local contract performance monitoring group, which included NHS England and Hertfordshire Police.Both NHS and police commissioners spoke highly of the service and its leadership, and of its responsiveness to their information requests.

There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the service. A dedicated manager was responsible for ensuring the smooth daily running of the SARC and compliance with protocols. An associate head of healthcare and a regional contracts director supported them in this work and visited regularly.

There was a clear and easily accessible system in place for staff to report any adverse events or non-conformance incidents that occurred which were reviewed weekly by senior managers. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the process and that they were made aware of those incidents that affected their roles.

A rolling yearly audit plan had been developed to assess key areas of performance such as staff training, health and safety, medicines management, and the quality of patient records. Each month the manager conducted audits for infection control, the management of patients who self-referred, and medicines prescribing. 10 sets of patient care records were audited for clinicians to ensure recording keeping standards were maintained. In addition to this, there were regular site visits from senior managers to check compliance with various aspects of the service. Daily and weekly checklists were used by staff to ensure essential tasks were completed on site.

The provider had systems to keep staff up to date with current evidence-based practice. Guidance from the FFLM was reviewed every 6 months by senior clinical managers to ensure the SARC was compliant with it. Information was disseminated through regular staff bulletins, the provider’s staff intranet and through updated operating procedures.

All staff received regular supervision, appraisal, and peer review to ensure their practice met professional standards and identify any training needs.

Staff well-being was taken seriously by the provider, who conducted regular wellness surveys and had appointed well-being ambassadors for each region. Staff told us the service was well led, citing good support, clear operating procedures, and plenty of time to undertake their duties with patients.

Freedom to Speak Up Champions were available if staff wanted to raise any concerns.

Feedback to improve the service was actively sought from patients, their carers, and police colleagues. Feedback forms were available on-site and QR codes were available on the provider’s website, posters and leaflets.

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.