Arrow Support Limited

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

People, staff, and relatives had confidence in the registered manager and told us the service was well-managed. People felt valued and were able to raise concerns if something was not right. Relatives spoke positively about the service and were happy with the support people received. Staff told us they felt the service was well led and managers were also available and approachable. Governance processes were effective in keeping people safe, protecting people's rights, providing good quality care and support, and driving improvements. The provider had policies in place to support staff to speak up, raise concerns, and keep people safe. Systems were in place to engage with people, their relatives, visitors, and health professionals to obtain feedback about the service and share learning. Managers and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and knew the people they supported and their care needs well. Throughout the assessment, the management team were open, honest, and transparent, acknowledged any areas for improvement and were keen to improve people’s experience and practice.

This service scored 64 (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.

The registered manager had a clear vision for the service and described how the whole team worked in a person-centred way to maximise people’s potential and lived experience. It was clear from our conversations that the management team and staff were passionate about achieving the best outcomes for people. For example, staff described how people were involved in the decisions they wanted to be involved with and were consulted on changes in the service or to their support. The registered manager had the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the service and was aware of their responsibilities in relation to the duty of candour, that is, their duty to be honest and open about any accident or incident that had caused or placed a person at risk of harm. Staff told us the service was well managed, they felt supported, appreciated, and could contribute to the running of the service. Comments included. “It is lovely, I would not want to work anywhere else and they [meaning the management team] are very supportive. I have several issues, they have me in every few months and check on me.” “It has been truly amazing considering I am on sponsorship, they have processed everything, they are great bosses, and everyone has been so welcoming and supportive.” “Every time I need help with stuff, work or personal, they have been there.” “Very well managed, I love it. I really enjoy it. All the office staff and managers know all the people we support, it feels like everyone is familiar and they know them well.”

Leadership was sustained through safe and effective recruitment. Systems promoted a positive, person-centred culture to benefit people using the service. The culture of the service fully embedded the provider’s values through staff training, staff induction, staff supervision and team meetings. The promotion of staff development and competency was fundamental to the development of the service. For example, both care managers were working towards nationally recognised qualifications. Policies and procedures supported an open and inclusive culture where staff at all levels of the organisation were encouraged and supported to ‘speak up’.

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 registered manager described the systems and processes to monitor the service and ensure compliance with the regulations. Each month the registered and care managers carried out a range of spot checks and audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service and ensure compliance with the regulations. Audits included support plans, medicines, safeguarding, accident and incidents, recruitment, training, health and safety etc. In addition to the auditing process, the registered manager held weekly meetings with care managers, to discuss the service, staff, and people. This enabled them to identify and escalate any concerns, agree on actions, and monitor progress on existing action plans. The service was supported by the provider’s compliance and governance team, who organised the provider’s quality governance forum, and safeguarding panels and carried out independent audits of the service. In addition, the registered manager told us they were supported by the provider’s governance lead, the nominated individual who visited the service regularly and the COO [Chief Operating Officer] who telephoned weekly. People's records were kept secure and confidential. Staff understood the need to respect people's privacy including information held about them in accordance with their human rights.

At our previous inspection in July 2023, we found governance systems were either not in place or undertaken robustly. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this assessment, we found improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17. Governance systems were in place to assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the services provided and drove improvement through regular audits and spot checks. This framework helped to monitor the management and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving. The management and staff structure provided clear lines of accountability and responsibility, which helped ensure staff at the right level made decisions about the day-to-day running of the service. Regular handover and staff meetings helped to ensure essential information was shared within the staff team / or escalated if needed to other healthcare professionals or senior managers.

People who wished to share their views spoke positively about the service, the staff and the management team and felt included. One person said, “I met with the staff before I moved into my new house and we talked about what I wanted.” Most people were not able to share their views with us about how the service worked in partnership with them to achieve good outcomes. However, one person said, “The place is run well.” Relatives had confidence in the service and welcomed the opportunity to give feedback. Comments included, “It is well managed,” “They [meaning staff] are reliable, they turn up when they should. They have been supportive to me when I’ve been poorly,” “We have had no concerns. We can rearrange care. They listen to what we need. They seem well organised.” And “They let us know if a carer can’t come in advance. They let us know if they are going to be late but that is rare.”

The registered manager recognised the importance of working in partnership to improve people’s outcomes. They described how they worked in close partnership with people, their families where appropriate and the local authority to achieve good outcomes for people. They recognised that filling in surveys did not always achieve good responses and described the different methods they were using to engage with people, relatives, and staff. For example, they arranged informal get togethers, such as the ‘Feedback Café’, which allowed people, their relatives, and staff to drop in for a coffee and chat. Staff spoke positively about the leadership of the service and told us they felt listened to, appreciated, and supported in their role. One staff member said, “We have regular team meetings, it is good to see everyone’s perspective on certain situations and it is good to chat to everyone.” Another said, “I went to the service user meal last Thursday and it was a really good experience and great to meet other staff from other services in Arrow and so helpful.”

We received no specific feedback from partner agencies prior to this assessment taking place. We saw many examples of how managers and staff worked closely and in partnership with health and social care professionals, families, and landlords to ensure ‘joined up’ care was delivered. This helped to ensure the best possible outcomes for people.

Systems and processes showed the provider worked in partnership with key stakeholders. Support plans demonstrated the service actively engaged with people, their families, and relevant professionals to seek support from a range of healthcare professionals. This meant advice and support could be accessed as required. Regular meetings and handovers helped to ensure information was shared. Systems were in place to gather people's, relatives, and staff’s feedback on the quality of the service and used to measure the service’s performance and drive improvements.

Throughout the inspection, the registered and care managers were open with us, acknowledged any areas for improvement and were keen to put processes in place to address any areas of concern or improve practice. They talked about how they had used our feedback from the previous inspection to strengthen their training; develop their understanding of safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA], and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards [DoLS] and how this was used to form part of the services development plan. The registered manager described how they promoted continuous learning through meetings with staff to discuss work practices, training, and development needs. For example, staff supervision and team meetings were used to openly discuss staff practice and any additional training, which in turn better supported safe and effective practice. The management team described how they shared information with external agencies such as healthcare professionals when things had gone wrong as well as liaising with families where appropriate to do so.

The provider and registered manager were committed to continually improving the service. Quality assurance and compliance systems in conjunction with internal and external audits were instrumental in driving improvement. Learning took place from accidents and incidents. For example, all information was analysed and reviewed monthly so any themes or trends could be identified. This information was also shared with the provider’s governance team for further follow-up and review. Concerns and complaints were listened to and acted upon to help improve the quality of the care and support provided by the service. Feedback received from people, relatives, staff and other health and social care professionals was seen positively and used to support learning and development. The service’s development plan allowed actions to be captured; was used to measure service progression and was regularly reviewed by the provider’s governance team.