Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust

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

Staff we spoke with said senior leaders were visible within the service. We found managers did not have oversight of compliance with trust policies regarding supervision, ligature training, administration of covert medications and timely review and closure of incidents.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt respected, supported, and valued.

Managers provided staff with opportunities for development and the provider promoted equality and diversity. Staff we spoke with had a passion and enthusiasm for their role, the culture of the service and the care and treatment they delivered to young people.

The trust’s values were compassion, accountability, respect and excellence. Staff on Ruby Lodge told us leadership was based on these values reiterated to staff. Staff said that during a team awayday the values and strategy were discussed and developed for staff regarding Ruby Lodge and was well received.

The service had a comprehensive training, development, and supervision programme to ensure staff development, increase awareness of best practice and to ensure that staff understood and demonstrated the vision and values of the service.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, and experience to perform their roles, however they did not always ensure staff had access to clinical supervision.

They had a good understanding of the service and the needs of young people and their carers.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Staff told us leaders were approachable, supportive, and visible within the service.

There was clear leadership at a local and senior level. Managers were visible during the day-to-day provision of care and treatment. Leaders were up to date with best practice and guidance and ensured that knowledge was shared across the whole team. Leaders ensured staff felt valued and supported.

Staff knew how to raise a concern and felt confident to do so. Staff said there was a positive and open culture, and they could always approach leaders if there was an issue. Staff told us that there was a freedom to speak up guardian in place to support staff with any concerns.

The trust had a whistleblowing policy and procedure in place to ensure staff were aware of how to effectively raise a concern. Staff had access to this policy and procedure via the trust intranet. It gave staff information on who they could raise concerns to senior leaders and relevant bodies including the Care Quality Commission.

Staff had access to a freedom to speak up guardians and staff knew how to make contact with them. Staff were able to raise concerns through a variety of feedback methods.

Staff we spoke with felt managers were respectful of cultural diversity.

Staff informed us that there was a considerable amount of training surrounding equality and diversity. Staff understood and valued the importance of equality and diversity within the workplace. Staff also informed us that there was a trust diversity lead that visited the hospital to provide training and to support staff who had experienced racial abuse.

Managers supported staff through supervision and team meetings and a trust diversity lead was accessible to support staff and offer training and supervision.

Managers did not ensure the timely review and closure of reported incidents, this meant potential learning was missed.

Managers did not have oversight of staff's compliance with ligature training.

We found a lack of governance regarding covert medication, with no policy in place to guide or advise nursing and medical staff in the administration of such medications.

There were staff meetings, clinical audits, incident reviews and debriefs, and patient meetings called ‘Your Voice’ meetings as well as anonymous feedback boxes situated around the hospital, however; governance systems they had in place were not always effective in identifying issues. We found that, managers did not have oversight of staff’s compliance regarding ligature training.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology they needed to do their work. However, concerns were raised around access to the electronic documentation system for agency and bank staff due to lack of available smartcards across the lodges. Staff also told us that the care records system they used was not user-friendly regarding care planning. Staff told us that the system often duplicated documentation when attempting to devise care plans.

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.

Managers did not have sufficient oversight of learning, as incidents were not reviewed and managed in a timely manner.