SeeAbility Buckinghamshire Support Service

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of a legal regulation in relation to governance at the service and how records reflected people’s needs and were maintained.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The providers policies and procedures supported a shared culture. Staff we spoke with confirmed equality and diversity were actively promoted, and the causes of any workforce inequality were identified, and action was taken to address these.

Staff were clear about the vision and mission statements of the organisation. One member of staff told us “We learn to be our best” and “we believe in each other”. Another member of staff told us “I do understand how this [values] applies to my role in the above statement and values, and this is something we work towards as a team every day and shift”.

The provider had 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. However, the registered manager and provider had not identified the issues we found.

Staff told us they had confidence in the leadership at the service. The leaders were described as “approachable” and “helpful”. One member of staff told us “I have no concerns”. Another member of staff told us “I find our managers very approachable and they do listen”.

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

Staff who provided feedback were clear about the provider’s policy and procedures regarding speaking up. One member of staff told us, “Managers have an open door policy where they will always be available for us to go into their office to talk and raise our concerns and speak up, I am also aware of a confidential whistleblowing service that we have when we feel we cannot speak directly to the managers”.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The nominated individual told us the provider held an annual excellence award ceremony. This was an opportunity for staff to be nominated for how they had demonstrated the provider’s values. One member of staff working at SeeAbility Buckinghamshire Support Services was nominated and won. It was clear from the nomination evidence, the member of staff had made a positive difference not only to the person, but to the person’s immediate family.

The provider had internal communication facilities to engage with staff and keep them updated with any benefits and support available. The nominated individual told us, “At SeeAbility Buckinghamshire Support Service, we take a proactive, inclusive, and multi-layered approach to supporting colleague wellbeing. Our offer spans emotional, physical, financial, and cultural wellbeing, and is embedded across our organisational culture, policies, and practice. All found in our wellbeing Hub in our internal portal”.

The provider did not have good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. Care records were not always accurate, complete or maintained, and there was conflicting information within people’s records which caused confusion as to what a person’s current needs were, including their mobility and skin integrity needs.

We found evidence care notes had not always been recorded on a daily basis for people who required daily support. The computer system identified and prompted when notes had not been written for any given day. However, the registered manager and senior staff failed to use this system effectively to ask staff to make an entry.

We found evidence risk assessments were incorrectly archived and out-of-date information was present in care plans. Records relating to people’s medical conditions, equipment or care were not routinely and consistently represented. This meant that staff did not always have access to the most up-to-date information required to support people.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider routinely worked in partnerships with teams such as the Learning Disability Liaison Nurses to support people to access healthcare in a seamless way, and requested training from specific teams that would reinforce staff’s care and support skills. The provider worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people could access the community in a safe way. People were routinely supported to attend the gym, access further education, attend dance classes, and go on holidays with family.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and learn from events, however, they had not routinely picked up on the issues identified by us or by the local authority. We found handover meeting records had not been routinely completed in full to ensure a clear audit trail of actions completed. For instance, cleaning duties were routinely not marked as completed.