Sheffield Supported Living

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 57 (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 provider had a plan in place which included visions and values for the company which staff were aware of and upheld. The registered manager, management team and staff demonstrated a positive, compassionate, and caring culture which enabled people to experience positive care.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

People and relatives said the service was managed effectively and staff felt supported by the management team. While the people we spoke to expressed, they were happy with the management of the service, our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities and legal requirements. The registered manager was responsible for overseeing 7 supported living schemes, each of which was managed by team leaders. We found inconsistencies in the management practices and the support across the individual schemes. For example, where issues were identified through quality assurance checks some managers did not always take the necessary steps to correct them in a timely way. The registered manager acknowledged the shortfalls identified at the inspection, and was eager to put processes in place to ensure people receiving care and support were safe and protected from harm.

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

The majority of staff commented the management team were supportive and approachable However, others said they did not feel managers valued or listened to them. Comments included, “I find the culture very open. I find it very easy to raise concerns with my manager as they always have time to talk if needed.” Other staff said, “Staff meetings are cancelled frequently and not very inclusive.”

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.

Leaders had a focus on diversity and inclusion. Leaders fostered a culture of acceptance and embracing different cultural beliefs with the staff team and people using the service. Protected characteristics were respected and plans put in place to ensure there was a zero tolerance to discrimination. One staff member told us, “I enjoy the culture at the service as we are all encouraged to be honest and open with no judgement. If I ever had an issue I knew I couldn't personally handle then I know I could go to the managers, and they would work through it with me.”

The systems and processes for ensuring good quality care were not operated effectively across the services. There was a new registered manager in place and before the inspection they had identified areas for improvement across each supported living service. However, at the time of our inspection systems being implemented had not become standard practice across the service.

The level of quality varied across each supported living service particularly in relation to paperwork. In some instances, we found support plans to be person centred and contained sufficient detail to enable staff to understand who people were and how to support them; in others we found further information was required to change language used and some support plans lacked the detail required to robustly guide staff on safe and appropriate care. Medicine audits were completed but they had not identified the concerns we found with medicine administration. This meant there was a lack of oversight of the service.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership. However, systems for sharing information and learning with partners required improvement. For example, processes in place at the service had failed to ensure information recorded about people was always up to date, accurate, or sufficiently detailed. This meant when information was shared about people between services, the quality of this information could not be guaranteed.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The registered manger acknowledged the shortfalls identified at this inspection and were eager to put processes in place to ensure people receiving care and support were safe and protected from harm. The management team understood their duty of candour, to be open and honest when things went wrong. They were committed to improving the service.