Your Life Your Home

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. There were processes in place to audit the quality of the service, however, some records were not always regularly reviewed to check they were accurate. There was an open and transparent culture within the service.

This service scored 68 (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’s website stated the vision for the support they provided, ‘We believe it's important that our clients live as near to normality as possible. We give them every opportunity to experience life.’ Also, ‘If it is not good enough for us, it is not good enough for our clients.’

Staff understood their role in making sure the vision for people’s support was achieved. Staff told us how they supported people to do activities they enjoyed and to be as independent as possible.

Staff were reminded of their role in supporting people at team meetings and how to make improvements.

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. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The service was managed and led by staff who had received appropriate training to develop their management skills.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and could raise any concerns. We observed people chatting to the provider and management team about what they had done and were going to do, during our assessment. Staff told us the provider was often at the service and known to people and staff.

Staff told us they received regular supervision which they found useful and had been supported to complete additional training such as management qualifications.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff attended regular meetings to discuss any concerns and people’s support needs or achievements. They also reviewed any safeguarding concerns and what changes needed to be made. There were also monthly team leader meetings, the provider and registered manager joined some of these meetings. People had regular tenants’ meetings to discuss any concerns they may have.

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 provider had an equality and diversity policy, which was followed by the management team.

New staff told us they had felt included and welcomed by current staff. They had been supported to arrange their work around their caring responsibilities.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. There were processes in place to monitor the quality of the service, however, these had not always been effective in identifying some shortfalls. There was no clear system to regularly review and update the support plans to make sure they reflected the support people received. People’s support plans were typed by the management team, staff usually altered the paper versions when changes had taken place. These changes were not dated to show which were the most recent changes and were not always clear for new staff. The medicine recording issues had not been identified. These shortfalls had not impacted people as staff worked with a small group of people and knew them well. Following our onsite assessment, the registered manager sent us updated audits and how these would be used to make improvements.

There were clear staff roles and responsibilities, which staff understood and worked within. Staff understood the management structure, how to raise concerns and report incidents.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. Staff referred people to healthcare professionals when their needs changed including the dietician, speech and language therapists and GP. Staff followed the advice given including how to prepare people’s food. Staff had organised people to have fire education, so people could understand what would happen in a fire and how to keep themselves safe.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. When incidents happen the processes in place had not been effective in identifying how other people may be affected. Though action had been taken to reduce the overall risk, the risk had not been assessed for individuals.

The registered manager kept up to date with changes in social care and the expectations when supporting people living with learning disabilities.