Social Care Solutions Ltd (Herts & Bucks)

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 inadequate. 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 previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 50 (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 begun to show signs of a clearer shared direction and a more positive culture, although this was not yet embedded across both locations. Since the last assessment, where leaders had acknowledged the need for stronger governance, leadership and sustainable monitoring processes, new local management had helped create greater stability and clearer expectations for staff. Staff reported noticeable improvement in day-to-day support, communication and supervision, reflecting early cultural shifts towards openness and encouragement. One member of staff told us, “There were so many improvements since the last inspection… management was not good before but recently this had improved since [Name of service manager] had been here.”

Leaders were also increasingly present and responsive, with more regular updates and closer engagement with people, staff and families. However, despite this progress, the provider had more work to do to ensure improvement was consistent and that quality monitoring, learning from incidents and audit activity became reliably embedded into everyday practice across the organisation. Sustained leadership focus was still needed to fully establish a culture where continuous improvement, accountability and shared purpose were clearly demonstrated.

Leadership within the service had begun to strengthen, with early improvements in visibility, communication and day to day support under the new service managers. Staff, people and relatives described these managers as supportive and responsive, noting that the culture on the ground was ‘slowly improving.’ Although the previous assessment identified significant concerns about leaders’ capability, understanding of the service context and the absence of a registered manager, the current service managers had started to rebuild trust and foster a more compassionate and inclusive environment.

Staff spoke positively about feeling encouraged and better supported locally, while recognising that sustained organisational support and the appointment of a registered manager remained essential for leadership to become fully capable, confident and aligned with the provider’s values. Staff members told us, “Things have really improved”, “We are having staff meetings and supervision now”, and “One of the things the new manager does is make sure we have supervision.”

Since our last assessment, leaders had taken steps to strengthen the speaking up culture, although this remained an area requiring continued focus. Staff previously told us they did not always feel heard by the senior leadership team and were unsure whether concerns raised were acted upon. Recent feedback showed some improvement at service level leadership, particularly at 1 of the supported living settings. Staff reported that the new manager had been a “game changer”, providing consistent supervision, being available on site, and created an environment where they felt increasingly supported and encouraged. They also reported receiving more frequent updates, improved communication, and stronger day to day support. These developments showed progress in local leadership visibility and responsiveness; however, confidence in senior leadership remained mixed, and further work was needed to ensure staff felt empowered, listened to, and assured that concerns were investigated sensitively and lead to organisational learning.

The service had made positive progress in improving workforce equality, diversity and inclusion, and staff reported feeling more supported and valued under the new local leadership. Regular supervision, clearer communication and increased management visibility had helped strengthen a respectful and inclusive team culture, with training and practical support contributing to a more positive working environment. However, the service had not yet fully embedded inclusive practice. Some staff continued to experience limited flexibility with their working hours and expressed mixed confidence in whether senior leaders fully heard and acted on their feedback. Continued focus was needed to ensure inclusive practice was consistently embedded and that all colleagues felt equally represented, empowered and heard across both supported living settings.

Whilst we had seen improvements, the provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not consistently act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service’s governance arrangements still required strengthening to ensure that quality, safety and compliance were monitored effectively and consistently. Although leaders had introduced action plans, spot checks and some improved oversight, gaps remained in core governance processes. For example, monthly quality and people compliance checks had been missed across November and December in 1 supported living setting, and audit actions lacked dates, reducing assurance that risks were addressed in a timely way. The provider had a tiered governance system to provide oversight of the service. Audits had failed to identify clear medicines issues such as expired stock and incomplete PRN documentation, indicating inconsistency in quality oversight.

Whilst audits were in place, they were only as good as the accuracy and reliability of the information fed into them. Where checks were inconsistently completed or failed to identify concerns, the effectiveness of oversight was significantly weakened, limiting the provider’s ability to identify risks early and drive sustained improvement.

Additionally, whilst a registered manager’s application had been submitted, the service had been operating without a registered manager since August 2023, which continued to present a leadership and regulatory risk. Strengthening audit reliability, ensuring timely follow through‑through of actions and securing stable registered management oversight were essential next steps for embedding safe and sustainable governance.

The service had begun to build stronger partnerships and community links, though further development was still required for services to work seamlessly for people. Leaders had increased communication with families, local authorities and external professionals, such as Speech and Language Teams (SALT), Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) teams and consultants. Staff reported more regular contact and clearer expectations under the new local management. Monthly family meetings and the introduction of “You said, we did” approaches demonstrated a growing commitment to collaborative working and shared decision making. Positive feedback from the local authority commissioner also reflected improvements in engagement and responsiveness. However, the provider had not always understood or fulfilled their duty to collaborate effectively, and information and learning had not consistently been shared with partners to drive improvement across both sites. Continued focus was needed to ensure partnership working became reliable, proactive and fully embedded so that people benefitted from coordinated, integrated support.

The provider had begun to strengthen its approach to continuous learning, innovation and improvement, although these developments were not yet embedded consistently across the organisation or local system. New local leadership had introduced more regular training, practical refreshers, sessions and Nourish drop-ins, which helped staff build confidence and improve day to day practice; however, learning was not yet applied reliably across both sites. The recent system migration across both supported living settings to a new electronic care planning system had supported more consistent recording and improved access to up to date information, but staff were still becoming familiar with the system, and its use was not yet fully embedded. Staff described feeling better supported and more able to reflect on their practice, and there were early signs of creative, person-centred approaches emerging to improve people’s quality of life.

Despite this, recurrent issues such as medicines issues, incomplete audits and delays in resolving environmental risks showed that continuous learning was not yet driving sustained improvement. Further work was needed to ensure the provider actively promoted innovation and consistently encouraged staff to explore new and creative ways of delivering equitable experiences and outcomes for all people.