Sapphire House

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 changed to 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 71 (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. There was evidence of a strong culture led by the registered manager. The culture was positive, and we observed there was an expectation people would achieve. Creative thinking was encouraged to try and bring about good outcomes for people.

Staff described the culture as familial, but we did not find this overstepped any professional boundaries but indicated respect and appreciation within the team.

The provider sought views from relatives, professionals and the local community where appropriate.

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 registered manager led by example and was open and honest with staff and other professionals. One staff member explained, ‘The manager will always come to support us if we need this. Before we felt alone and did not know what to do and were just told to carry on and keep going. A lot of staff left. Now we know sometimes the best solution is to step back. [A person who used the service] used not to go out. We wanted to support [them] but did not do it properly which elevated [them] but now [they are] able to go out on any day [they] want.’ Staff also felt comfortable with the provider and told us they were often in the service and were happy to advise staff if required. Feedback from relatives was positive about the manager and the culture at the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us both the registered manager and the provider were approachable and said they would not hesitate to raise concerns should they feel the need to. The registered manager operated an open door policy and there was information for staff about how to informally and formally raise a concern.

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. Staff told us the culture was a fair and equal one and they worked together in a supportive and collaborative way. One staff member had experienced some racist treatment from someone outside of the staff team whilst at work. This issue had been sensitively dealt with, and the manager had ensured the staff member was fully supported and their rights upheld.

The provider did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had clear lines of responsibility, and the registered manager and provider worked well together. The provider carried out regular comprehensive audits and had an ongoing plan for the service. There was good oversight of most of the service. However, the few incidents we identified regarding medicines management, works required following the 5-year electrical installation inspection and safeguarding of people’s monies, had not been identified and action taken. The provider acknowledged these as areas to work on and immediately set about addressing our concerns.

The manager worked well to support the staff and set up systems to have oversight of everyday routines. Staff were supported to increase their knowledge and skills and take on additional responsibilities if they were willing to do this.

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. Feedback from health and social care professionals was positive about the collaborative and open way staff worked to ensure people’s needs were met. One professional stated, ‘I want to applaud them in being one of the most open and honest homes I have worked with in my 6 years as a social worker.’ A second commented, ‘They do regularly ask for my advice and crucially listen and respond to it. I find them open and honest when things have gone wrong, as they occasionally do when you're dealing with complex behaviours. ‘

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 manager was involved in external groups and projects and brought the learning back to the service to benefit the people living there. The manager encouraged staff to continually develop their skills and knowledge and was keen to ensure reflective practice was built into the culture. All situations were viewed as potential learning opportunities and a wide range of information was available for staff to refer to and learn from.