Integral Focus Support and Care Services

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 75 (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 they aimed to support people to lead independent and fulfilling lives in their homes for as long as possible. There was a clear culture and vision that enabled this. This was reflected in the service user guide that was issued to people. There was a policy on equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff all received training in this topic.

The management team operated an ‘open door’ policy where people, relatives and staff could speak to them at any time to ensure there was an open culture where concerns could be raised and acted upon.

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.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and were clear about their responsibilities. They understood their roles and told us they were supported by the management. Staff were provided with information and guidance, which covered areas to do with their roles and responsibilities. They felt valued and supported by the management team and were included in discussions about the service.

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

A whistleblowing policy included details on how to raise concerns both internally and externally, which allowed staff freedom to speak up. Staff feedback was sought as part of supervisions and staff meeting. Whistleblowing is the act of reporting wrongdoing, misconduct, or illegal activities within an organisation.

Staff knew how to use the whistleblowing policy and understood their role and responsibilities of reporting concerns and knew who to go to if they needed to.

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.

Policies and procedures ensured staff worked in an environment that was free from discrimination. The registered manager welcomed diversity in their workforce and provided support to their staff team.

Minutes from staff meetings demonstrated that staff were fully informed about service developments and staff were able to provide feedback at these meetings. The provider encouraged an open-door policy, allowing staff to raise concerns or suggestions comfortably.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last inspection in 2022, we found robust governance systems were not in place such as regular audits were not being carried out. At this assessment, we found that improvements had been made. The provider had strengthened its governance arrangements and was identifying and addressing areas where improvements were needed. For example, shortfalls in staff recruitment processes had been identified, and appropriate action was taken to ensure staff were safe and suitable to work with people.

There was a registered manager in place who had responsibility for the day to day running of the service. Records showed the provider had quality assurance systems to ensure regular audits were carried out. Care plan audits were completed to ensure care plans were personalised. Health and safety audits were being completed to ensure people received safe and effective care.

Systems were in place to receive feedback from people and staff through reviews, surveys and as part of staff supervisions and meetings.

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.

Staff and leaders worked collaboratively with people, their relatives and relevant professionals. They shared information effectively and involved people and their relatives in care planning and decision-making. We reviewed numerous communication records between the service and social care teams, and with relatives, including invitations to care reviews and correspondence about people’s care. This demonstrated effective partnership working.

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.

There were processes in place to ensure that learning took place when things went wrong. The staff team regularly discussed how the service and the care provided to people could be improved. They sought feedback from people and their relatives, which they used to develop the service. The provider acknowledged our feedback and acted swiftly where improvements were needed. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to making positive changes to the service.