Support for Living Limited - 246 Haymill Close

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 identified breaches in relation to good governance. There were systems and processes for identifying and improving quality of care. These were not always operated effectively because people did not always have good quality experience or outcomes. However, the provider had identified improvements were needed and had made changes to help reduce risk and improve quality of care. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

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 told us they understood the values of the organisation and have enough information about these.

The culture at the service did not always reflect the visions and values of the organisation and best practice. The staff did not always provide personalised care which met people's individual needs. Nor did they help them to have meaningful and fulfilling lives. The staff had not always spoken up when they had witnessed poor care or abuse. This meant there had been a delay in the situation being addressed and lessons learnt. The management team were aware of these concerns and had started to take steps to address these. They had regular meetings with staff and were providing more guidance for staff to improve their practice.

Staff told us they had felt unsettled by changes in management but felt well supported now and felt the interim manager was knowledgeable and making the necessary changes.

There was no registered manager at the time of our assessment. A manager from another of the provider's care homes was covering as interim manager whilst permanent arrangements were made. The interim manager was experienced, qualified and registered with CQC for another service. They were supported by a team of senior managers from the organisation. They had started to address some of the areas of concern. For example, over the past few months there had been several incidents when things had gone wrong. They had worked with other agencies, such as the local authority, to investigate these and put in in place improvements, such as staff training and new guidelines.

Staff told us they knew how to speak up. They felt managers and the organisation supported them and listened to them. They felt concerns would be acted on.

The provider had systems to support staff to speak up. These had not always been effective. Some staff had witnessed abuse or bad practice but had not reported this. The provider had taken steps to try and address this so that staff knew their responsibilities and felt able to speak up. Staff knew the management structure within the organisation and who to report concerns to. There were also systems for staff to raise anonymous concerns. The provider had acted on information of concern from staff feedback.

Staff felt the organisation provided equality and support. They explained they were supported with flexible working conditions, felt discrimination was challenged and they had opportunities to celebrate their diversity through working and support groups within the organisation.

The provider had systems to help ensure staff were treated well. They had policies and procedures for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. These were implemented through recruitment practices, training, and support for staff. The provider's strategic plan included their aim for equality, diversity and inclusion to be central to culture and practice.

Staff told us they understood about keeping information safe and data protection.

The processes for ensuring records were accurate, clear, and up to date were not always followed. We identified some care plans and risk assessments included generic statements which did not show how individual needs should be met. We found some records needed updating to reflect changes in people's needs. The provider's quality and governance systems have not been able to embed and sustain improvements at the service.

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.

Staff told us about the training and support they had but they were not always able to transfer this to the way they supported people to have good quality outcomes.

The provider's systems for monitoring and improving quality were not always implemented effectively. People experienced task-based care which did not always meet their individual needs. They were not always supported in line with best practice for caring for people with a learning disability. Assessments, care plans and risk management plans were not always person-centred and did not give the staff guidance about people's individual needs and how these should be met. The provider had started to address issues and had taken action to improve the way people were supported to move safely, with eating and drinking, medicines management and improvements to the building. The senior managers within the organisation recognised further improvements were needed to provide more person-centred care. They had started to work with staff to address this and carried out a range of checks and audits to help identify when things were going wrong.