Shared Lives and Reablement Scheme

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.

This is the first assessment for this assessment service group under this location. This key question has been rated 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.

The registered manager told us their vision was; ‘We see, we hear, we care, we act, we learn’.

The registered manager told us they ensured they worked in line with these values by discussing them in supervisions and holding regular MDT’s.

We received positive feedback from people receiving support and staff which demonstrated a positive culture. For example, one person commented, “Things are slowly progressing.”

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 received regular support from the nominated individual. The registered manager commented “[Nominated individual] is really good at coming in if I need her.”

We heard of examples where the registered manager had been compassionate and extended care and support for people where needed.

Staff spoke positively about leaders within the service. One staff member commented, “They are very supportive and respond quickly when we call them with a problem an issue or need a question answering during the shift, they will come out to assist us when we need them to as well.”

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

Staff felt able to speak up and raise any concerns. One staff member commented, “Yes, I'm comfortable speaking up to raise any concerns that I'm faced with, whether this is colleagues, clients or personal issues.” However, one staff member commented they felt any comments or suggestions were not followed through.

The registered manager told us they were confident staff felt able to speak up and described staff as open in raising concerns.

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 were supported with any reasonable adjustments they required. For example, they had supported one staff member return from long-term sick leave in a flexible way. There was an equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place for staff.

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

Governance systems had not identified concerns regarding missing care planning information, medicines and missing details within risk management plans.

Audits did not routinely take place at the service, however there were other systems in place to ensure oversight. For example, leaders used dashboards to monitor people’s outcomes and the effectiveness of the service.

The provider’s policy file contained some policies which were dated 2018, and updated policies were held on a shared drive. This meant staff may have had access to outdated policies.

However, staff spoke positively about the management of the service. The manager was making changes within the organisation to ensure better oversight.

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.

The service had good links with other services. We observed meetings where there were proactive discussions about people’s needs and the care they required.

We received feedback from a professional who worked alongside the service. They told us they felt the service communicated well but highlighted some areas they felt needed improvement. For example, paper records which made it difficult to transfer some information. We raised this with the provider for them to address.

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 manager had made various improvements since starting at the service. For example, they had revised some policies and procedures. The registered manager also amended the discharge protocol, after identifying the previous protocol as being too short notice for people.