The Wesley Centre

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.

This service scored 64 (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 vision and values of the service was clear, person-centred and included compassion, dignity, independence, respect, equality and safety. The registered manager led by example and empowered people to live full lives. The provider fostered a collaborative culture and promoted recognition. Staff spoke passionately about how they provided good care and how they all had a shared goal across the organisation. A staff member commented, “Yes it’s a good place to work and I really enjoy getting the best out the people I support and seeing them happy and become more independent in day-to-day life, and I like everything about my job.”

The provider was eager to learn and implement advice but relied on guidance from external sources and was not consistently up to date with best practice. Areas requiring improvement were not always identified internally; however, when concerns were highlighted by external agencies, the provider took immediate and proactive action to address them.

For example, the provider had followed advice and developed a behaviour support plan for one individual. However, not all aspects of behaviour support and management had been considered in line with best practice guidance. For instance, staff and people using the service were not routinely supported with a debrief following incidents. The provider acknowledged this and told us they would update their guidance to ensure it fully reflected best practice.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and were encouraged in their personal and professional development. The registered manager was visible and approachable, and people using the service, their relatives, and staff all felt able to contact them and that their views were valued.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff felt listened to and said that they were happy to raise concerns at any time. The provider had a whistleblowing policy. Staff supervisions also took place regularly where staff said that they could raise their concerns. Staff stated that when they had raised a concern with the registered manager they had been listened to, and action had been taken. One staff said, “No concerns at all, they are excellent manager’s and keep us informed.”

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. There was an inclusive and fair culture with equality and equity for staff.

All staff were positive about working at The Wesley Centre and felt they were treated with respect. One staff said, “The management are very approachable.” All staff had been supported with their professional development. Staff had received robust training and opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills.

The provider did not have consistent systems of accountability or effective governance arrangements in place. Although service audits had been carried out, they lacked detail about the actions taken and whether any lessons had been learned. As a result, themes, trends, and areas for improvement had not consistently been identified. For example, concerns regarding finances had not prompted the provider to review or strengthen their financial monitoring systems, which were not underpinned by a finance policy. While finance audits were conducted regularly, they were not supported by a robust written procedure to guide practice and ensure systems and processes were effective. The absence of a finance policy had not been identified by the provider, indicating a lack of oversight and governance in this area.

The registered manager had the responsibility to manage business concerns outside of normal working hours; however, consideration had not been given to situations where they might be unavailable. The provider had taken steps to introduce an on-call procedure to ensure appropriate cover would always be in place going forward and created an accessible card for people to carry with them.

The provider worked in partnership with others to help ensure people received joined-up care that met their needs. They shared information and learning with health and social care professionals and collaborated to support continuous improvement.

Staff and the management team were open and transparent, and they collaborated with all relevant external stakeholders and agencies. The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to achieve good outcomes for people. Records demonstrated collaboration with external professionals and families, whilst keeping the person at the centre of their care and support.

The provider did not consistently demonstrate a focus on continuous learning, innovation, and improvement across the organisation and within the local system. There was no evidence of a review of trends or themes, meaning opportunities for learning and service improvement may have been missed.

Although systems were in place to gather feedback from staff, and people using the service, feedback from relatives, and professionals feedback had not been sought. This meant the provider did not have a fully holistic view of the service’s performance.

Staff received ongoing training to support them in their roles and promote a consistent approach to care and support. They also attended regular supervision meetings to discuss their learning needs and reported feeling supported in their career development.

The provider engaged with external agencies and the local authority to strengthen learning and improvement. They were also working collaboratively with the local authority, which had identified similar concerns regarding governance systems, to ensure these became more effective going forward.