Dr Thusitha Gooneratne

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

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 as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity, inclusion and engagement. Staff and leaders understood the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
Leaders monitored and reviewed progress against the delivery of their strategy. The service was aware of local changes which affected their service, such as the move to ‘total triage’ by other services. Staff and leaders actively promoted equality and diversity and worked to identify the causes of any workforce inequalities. They demonstrated a positive and compassionate listening culture that focused on learning and development.
 

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The service had clear responsibilities and roles. Governance arrangements were generally appropriate for a service of this size, but there were some weaknesses in how the service acted on information about risk, in oversight of policies and in documentation.
All staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders proactively supported staff and regularly met with them to complete appraisals and performance reviews. Staff in advanced clinical roles received more frequent support and supervision, but these meetings were not fully and consistently documented.
Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Following changes to the management of the service, all policies and processes were being reviewed, and some had been identified as not being in line with the latest guidance or being inconsistency implemented. For example, the training which the service had deemed mandatory did not align with recent legislation to improve the quality of care for people with autism and learning disabilities. Where appropriate the weaknesses had been risk assessed and mitigated, and the service sent us an action plan for improvement.
Leaders held regular meetings with staff, during which they discussed emerging risks and potential improvements to the service. Leaders clearly recorded any actions that arose from these meetings and shared these with staff. Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously, which included verifying people’s identity during remote consultations. Staff submitted data and notifications to external agencies as required.
 

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.