Luton Alliance Clinical and Care

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 rated well led as good. We assessed 7 quality statements. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles, had a good understanding of the services they managed, and were visible in the service and approachable for service users and staff. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care and used that information to good effect.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were positive about how the team engaged in supporting service users to live their best lives.

Leaders ensured there was a shared vision, which staff knew, understood and supported.

The provider had a service development plan in place, which included improving timeliness of care plans.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them and people using the service and was focused on learning and improvement, areas for improvement and any learning was discussed at all meetings.

Staff were complimentary about the services leadership and felt that leaders had the appropriate knowledge, experience and skills to lead effectively. Staff felt that leaders were supportive and approachable. Leaders were visible throughout the service.

Leaders had access to support and development for their role, this included regular management meetings, a development plan for the organisation and a peer support network. Leaders confirmed they had regular and ongoing support and access to ongoing development.

The service had a duty of candour policy in place, which staff were aware of. we saw evidence of duty of candour being discussed in team meetings.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the term ‘freedom to speak up’ but said they did not have access to a freedom to speak up champion at CGL. Staff felt confident to approach managers if they had concerns and said that there was a culture of openness. Staff we spoke with could give examples of when they had spoken with managers and had received support. For example, when they had been under a lot of pressure with complex caseloads and said that they had received additional support and supervision following this.

Staff we spoke with confirmed they had been given the opportunity to drive improvement within their roles, in particular, where they had moved in to newly developed roles and had been given the freedom to evolve and expand their roles.

Managers investigated concerns, complaints and service user deaths effectively, sensitively, confidentially and lessons learnt were shared at regular meetings. This included a thorough mortality and learning review with the senior leadership team which was shared with all staff at the integrated governance team meeting monthly.

Staff felt they were treated fairly and equitably. Staff we spoke with said they felt that the service supported them with flexible working, compressed hours and reasonable adjustments. Staff said the organisation supported their wellbeing and they could access an hour off work each week, known as the wellbeing hour.

The provider had policies in place which were in-line with current best practice guidance around; gender pay gap, equality and diversity (of the workforce) and flexible working arrangements.

Staff had access to equality training to help them understand about protected characteristics, bullying and harassment.

Leaders could evidence reasonable adjustments or assistive technology in place to support staff to carry out their roles.

Staff felt the service was organised and well-managed, staff understood their roles, responsibilities and accountability within the service. The service had staff specialists in areas including alcohol, criminal justice, rough sleeping and outreach, opiates and hospital liaison.

Staff explained the quality assurance processes they were involved in, including learning from service user deaths.

Leaders used the integrated governance team meetings to communicate with staff around risk in the service and improvements needed.

The service had clear governance processes in place to evidence good quality assurance and management oversight. The service had an audit schedule in place which included early unplanned exits, medication management and risk and recovery care planning. Outcomes from these audits were shared at integrated governance team meetings and during supervision.

The management team worked well as a team to ensure there was oversight and effective governance at the service. The service used computerised systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the regulatory requirements. Staff understood their role and responsibilities. All staff had job descriptions, contracts and received support from leaders to ensure they had the necessary training. Leaders reviewed training monthly to ensure staff were up to date and completing required training.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for service users. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The service had joint working protocols in place with local organisations to support service user’s ongoing care.

Staff told us that had good relationships with wider partners including the local authority, housing, healthcare providers, and commissioning.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them. They did this through regular audits and monitoring of work. Staff spent time discussing outcomes of audits and what actions needed to be implemented where they were necessary during integrated governance team meetings.

The service had recently identified an area for improvement as care plans were not always being completed in a timely manner. Leaders held a team meeting to discuss care plans, provided additional training and started an audit schedule to ensure care plans were being completed with service users within the set timescales.