White Windows

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

At our last inspection this key question was rated inadequate. At this assessment, the provider had improved, and this key question is now rated good. Leaders had good knowledge of the people using the service and although improvements had been made, they were committed to further development. Processes had been put in place to ensure the quality and safety of the service was monitored for improvement. Staff felt confident in raising concerns with management, who they described as open and approachable. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback about the service, which was being used to drive improvements.

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.

Leaders were clear about the direction for the service and staff felt this was communicated to them. One staff member said, “[The values] are discussed daily in the handovers but it's more about how they're shown in practice - how discussions with people are approached, how team meetings are led, that says far more about the values than just being told them.” There was evidence of improvement within the service, and leaders were open about the need for further development. Our discussions with staff and review of anonymous staff survey responses indicated staff felt safe to report and discuss any issues they encountered.

Meetings were held with all involved in the service to make sure they were able to discuss any issues and be kept informed of matters affecting the service.

Leaders were involved with the service and knew people well. All staff we spoke with were very complimentary of the registered manager and the wider management team. They felt managers were open, approachable and supportive. Staff said the registered manager was very supportive, would help them in delivering care and was observant and supportive in relation to their well-being. Staff also told us they could contact the manager at any time to discuss any issues.

The service was supported by experienced leaders who understood their management responsibilities. Leaders were knowledgeable and experienced in supporting the needs of the people who lived at the service.

Staff were confident to raise any issues with members of the management team. Staff told us they would have no hesitation in speaking up if they thought something was wrong. One staff member told us, “You can raise things if you want. Or if you've got concerns you can go to anyone [the managers], the seniors - you don't need to wait to raise it in a meeting.”

Systems were in place for staff and people to raise concerns. This included at individual supervisions, in team meetings and via whistleblowing and complaint procedures. A notice board in the entrance held information about how to raise a complaint or concern and information about safeguarding. Staff said they would feel comfortable in raising a concern and this was reflected in a recent anonymous staff survey.

Leaders told us how they provided support to staff to ensure there was equality, diversity and inclusion. For example, the religious and cultural needs of staff were considered. Staff also told us that a variety of working hours were available in order that they could fit these around other commitments.

The provider has system to support the diverse needs of staff to ensure all felt well supported. For example there were systems in place to support overseas staff to overcome language barriers, by supporting them to improve their English comprehension and language skills.

Staff and leaders felt there had been real improvements in the service. However, the provider had still put plans in place to build on improvements. Leaders told us about the improvements they had made since our last inspection. We found staffing, care planning and activity provision had improved and standards of cleanliness within the service were much improved.

Systems for auditing safety and quality in the service were much improved. However, auditing of people’s personal monies had not been robust enough to identify issues with recording and incorrect balances. The management team took immediate action to address these issues. Medicines audits had also failed to identify issues we found, and we were not able to see evidence of actions taken in relation to the recent IPC audit. The provider had recently commissioned a full audit by an external company and regular monitoring was taking place by the LA who found minimal improvements were needed and recognised the improvements made.

People were supported to engage in activities in the local community. One person told us that they had been in discussions with the local authority, which had been arranged by the service, regarding undertaking voluntary work.

The registered manager engaged with the local authority’s provider network forum. This is an opportunity for providers in the locality to share models of working, good practice and ideas for improving services. Staff told us that the local authority visited the service regularly and were supportive in providing ideas for improvement, and that feedback from healthcare professionals was considered for how it could support all residents. One staff member told us, “The local authority visit quite often, they’re quite good at sharing ideas for things we could do. If a doctor or district nurse feeds back on something, I’ll also think about whether their guidance could work for other residents as well.”

The local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams told us leaders and staff were responsive, proactive, and worked in partnership with them.

Staff and leaders engaged with voluntary organisations and charities, as well as specialist health and social care providers, to improve outcomes for people using the service. For example, staff supported people to become involved with the MS Society.

Leaders used feedback from people using the service to make improvements. The local authority told us leaders had recently completed an action plan they had been working on together. Staff felt management were open to suggestions, but felt action taken as a result was not always obvious.

People’s involvement in the running of the service meant their ideas for improvement were listened to and, where possible, put into practice. For example, people were involved in staff recruitment, certain aspects of auditing and leading meetings.