NCYPE - College Residential Services Lingfield

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

There were effective systems in place to assess, monitor and strive to continuously improve the service. Policies and procedures underpinned all processes to support safety. This meant leaders and the culture they created supported the delivery of good-quality care. There was a capable and compassionate management team who, with staff, fostered a culture that delivered good quality care for people. There were strong relationships with external professionals and partners to ensure people’s needs were met. People who used the service, their family members and staff told us they had confidence in the management of the service and felt involved in decision making.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. These were used to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care. Staff across the service had clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability. 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. The provider had a range of quality tools they used to ensure good care was provided. This included health and safety checks, fire checks and regular audits on people’s medicines to ensure they received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There was a consistent senior leadership team, which family members told us gave them confidence and assurance in the service provision. Staff told us, “I feel I can be honest with my manager and learn from them. I feel valued by my manager.” Another told us, “Even though the executive principal is head of everything, they are very easy to talk to and they encourage interaction and actually listens to us.”

There was a robust governance system in place, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, systems of accountability and routine oversight which demonstrated good governance of the service. The registered manager used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. The provider acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and where necessary, an action plan was completed with clear timescales for improvements. Policies and procedures were easily accessible for staff to refresh their understanding of best practice. The provider had systems to gain feedback from staff, people who used the service and family members. All notifications to the local authority and CQC as required by law were submitted in a timely manner.

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.

The organisation was clear about their vision and values and focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. This was supported by a review of the overall effectiveness of the service, which identified areas for improvement, including strategic and staff development. Some of these changes were already in place, and we saw how the management structure in each house provided a skill mix to meet the varied needs of people. Staff told us, “The new management structure is really helpful as it gives us direct access to senior managers who work alongside us to implement the changes which are planned,” and “We have had lots of time to prepare [people] for this change. This transition has been very well planned.” Relationships were developed such that care provision was joined up with external agencies. There was a consistent approach towards delivering a high quality service to people. The registered manager told us about the ways in which they were continually considering ways in which to improve the provision of service. This included being proactive in identifying shortfalls through their audits and checks. Changes and ideas on how the organisation might do things differently were presented to the staff forum for advice and feedback before any changes for the organisation were initiated. A member of staff said, “I feel included in changes, we are all informed and my opinion is asked for.” The registered manager understood the importance of continual improvement and felt supported by the senior leadership team and the systems in place to be able to sustain this.