Friendly Support Services Limited

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

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 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 provider had a clear vision, to enable people to achieve goals and live the life they wanted to live. Staff understood the importance of this and how to support people to experience this.

The culture within the service was person centred and open. Staff felt there was a culture of collaboration, as did people and their relatives. Everyone felt listened to and included in the direction of their individual care, and the provider. One relative told us, “I’m their [person] advocate and contribute to discussions.”

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, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff, people and relatives had confidence in the managers. One relative told us that if they ever have a concern, the managers “receive them well, and I’m confident they will sort it out”. Another told us, “I can get in touch with the managers anytime I like. Always friendly. They sort things. No worries about approaching them”.

Staff told us that managers and leaders are always approachable, listen to them and are understanding. One staff member told us, “They [managers] are working hard, and staff members are happier”.

We found there were some areas that leaders and managers did not have all the relevant knowledge, for example, around Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, however, they when provided guidance by inspectors, they were quick to learn and embed processes into the service.

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

Staff told us they felt managers and leaders were very approachable and staff were confident to speak up.

Staff had good knowledge about freedom to speak up and their rights around this movement.

Some staff told us that they had spoken up before and it had been handled professionally and appropriately, and they noticed a prompt change.

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 they felt respected and valued as individuals. Leaders promoted an open culture where differences were recognised. Recruitment practices were fair and transparent and upheld people’s right to equality.

Staff received regular training on equality, diversity and inclusion and demonstrated good knowledge of this.

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.

Care providers have a duty to submit statutory notifications to the CQC, for certain events or incidents. We found that the provider did not have this embedded into their process and some incidents we had not been informed about where we should have.

Managers maintained good oversight of the service, through audits and working closely with staff, people and relatives.

The provider worked closely with the managers and were at times involved directly with the running of the service, however, they did not have systems or processes in place to maintain oversight of the service as a whole. This was fed back to the provider and they told us that they remain confident in the managers they have employed to complete their roles to a good standard.

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 provider worked collaboratively with health and social care partners to ensure care was coordinated and responsive to people’s changing needs. We found they had regular communication with GPs, nurses and local authority, as some examples, which helped promote continuity of care.

The provider also supported people to enquire about and attend local community groups which helped reduce isolation and promote social skills and independence.

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.

We found that the provider had systems and processes in place to learn from incidents, complaints, or events and embed change into their practices.

During the assessment, managers, leaders and staff were open to feedback, keen to learn and implement timely change to improve the service.