Walsingham Support - London Supported Living

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. The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led.

Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer rated requires improvement. The provider had taken action to improve the effectiveness of their governance systems and safety and quality monitoring was effectively managed.

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 service had a shared and clear vision and goals. Part of their vision is to ‘reinforce the voices of all those with learning disabilities, autistic people and other complex needs to challenge the status quo, disrupt perceived limitations and influence sector wide change and culture’.

Values of the organisation were embedded into the culture of the service, through team meetings, staff supervisions and observed practice.

Staff undertook a range of training and had used this to help ensure procedures were followed to provide people with good quality care. There was regular communication between staff so that they could share their experiences and learn from one another. Systems and processes had been designed in line with the service’s vision and values and focused on people and meeting their individual needs.

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 had good knowledge and skills linked to the delivery of good care and support for people. They organised and led regular team meetings to keep members of staff informed about improvements and developments in the organisation.

Feedback from people and relatives indicated that they had confidence in management and felt able to have open discussions with them. A person told us, “There have been improvements. We’ve had a new manager. They are helpful, approachable and kind.” A relative said, “I would be able to go to the manager because they’re pretty responsive.”

Since the previous inspection, there had been an organisational restructure. Staff spoke positively about the changes in management. Staff understood their roles, responsibilities and contributions to the service. The registered manager was supported by the operations manager. Managers were responsive when things went wrong and took action to make improvements. Throughout our assessment of the service, management and staff we spoke with acted with openness, integrity and transparency.

There was open and ongoing communication between the management team and staff. Regular meetings between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss people’s individual support needs and the running of the service.

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

Speaking up procedures were in place and accessible to staff. Details of these procedures were shared with staff during their induction, team meetings and supervision sessions. Information was also displayed on noticeboards in the office. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident the management would listen to them and respond. Management supported people to assert their rights as tenants, for example, holding the housing association accountable to repairs to their home in a reasonable timeframe.

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff.

Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up.

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

Speaking up procedures were in place and accessible to staff. Details of these procedures were shared with staff during their induction, team meetings and supervision sessions. Information was also displayed on noticeboards in the office. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident the management would listen to them and respond. Management supported people to assert their rights as tenants, for example, holding the housing association accountable to repairs to their home in a reasonable timeframe.

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff.

Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up.

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.

Governance systems were reviewed regularly through audits and the provider used these audits as part of its continuous improvement and development process.

Our previous inspection found that the service did not have an effective quality assurance framework to help identify shortfalls. This assessment found that the service had implemented a new quality assurance framework. This new framework was comprehensive and aimed to guide, clarify and communicate how the service ‘evaluates, improves and maintains the high quality standard of the service delivery’.

The new framework clearly set out staff responsibilities and enabled management to have ongoing oversight over all aspects of the running of the service so that they could take action without delay to make improvements.

The previous assessment found that some maintenance work was required to the premises but there had been delay in these being addressed. The registered manager explained that they had worked with the housing association to ensure that those areas previously identified as requiring remedial work had been acted on. For example, the uneven surface caused by raised slabs had been addressed, the fencing and skylights had been replaced.

Since the previous inspection, there had been a change in management. The registered manager had worked closely with senior management and staff to make improvements to the service. There was consistent management of the service and staff felt well supported.

During this assessment, we found the service had reviewed their audits and these were now comprehensive and focused on identifying issues and taking action to make improvements. Management carried out various comprehensive checks and audits. The audit checked the running and efficiency of the service to help identify deficiencies and make improvements.

Management understood and demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements. They also understood their responsibility to provide honest information, suitable support and to apply duty of candour where appropriate.

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 told us they worked with a range of other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care.

The service focused on continuous learning and positive improvements to the running of the service. The culture within the service promoted honesty and learning from mistakes and there was a clear understanding of the need to be open in the event of anything going wrong. Feedback was shared with people, relatives and staff to ensure lessons were learnt.

Management had established links with organisations representing people with specific conditions, ensuring they had current information on best practice for supporting people.

Staff were supported to learn and improve in their role, through training, supervision and staff meetings. Arrangements were in place to obtain feedback from people and staff to help the service learn and improve.