Maplehurst

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

During our assessment of this key question, we found systems and processes were in place to ensure good oversight of the service. Meetings were held on a regular basis to ensure people were kept informed of changes. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to speak up and lessons were learnt from incidents and accidents. Effective quality assurance processes were in place, and managers were clear about their responsibilities. During this inspection, we found the service worked well with other professionals to meet the needs of people. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and were knowledgeable about peoples needs.

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.

Staff and managers were dedicated to ensuring people’s needs and mutual expectations were regularly discussed between staff and young people. Staff were confident in raising concerns and they felt they would be heard by managers.

There were systems and processes in place to support the managers and the staff team. The management structure at the service and the wider organisation ensured the provider had good oversight of the service. Team meetings happened regularly and relevant issues around culture at the service were discussed and team work was promoted.

Staff told us managers were supportive. Their comments included, "If I had a concern I would raise to the team" and "Everyone has a good and positive relationship with [name of manager] and [name of deputy manager]."

The registered manager was not based at the service and the day to day management of the service was done by the home manager, who was in the process of submitting an application to register. The management team kept an appropriate oversight of the clinical risks and actions were taken in a timely way.

Staff told us they felt confident to speak up. Comments included, "I feel supported by my team. We work collaboratively, always listen to each other's views and opinions respectfully and I feel comfortable approaching any member of the team for help knowing that they will be happy to help."

There were policies and procedures in place to ensure people, relatives and staff felt confident to speak up, this included Speak up Policy and Whistleblowing Policy. In our review of the documentation and feedback we received we confirmed these were being followed.

Staff told us they felt their knowledge, skills and wellbeing was supported and promoted. A staff member told us, "I think they [managers] do quite a lot [to support staff]. There are staff support meetings where a, psychologist comes to the house, meets with all staff, we discuss things on our mind and what gets you down. We have reflective practice and formulation meetings where our clinical nurse specialist and psychologist explain the psychologist behind [young people's behaviours] and how to best support; it is nice to put that in perspective." Another staff member commented, "I have felt that the management team are experienced and skilled. I have also seen that they are from diverse backgrounds with experience and skills and have an open culture."

Management team fostered an inclusive culture where everyone was treated fairly. Staff were offered regular meetings to discuss their work, improve their knowledge and improve their wellbeing.

Managers were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We received positive feedback from people, relative and staff about the management team working in the service.

There were several quality assurance processes in place and these were effective. Senior carers and managers were required to complete regular audits to identify areas for improvement and ensure care was provided and recorded as required. These audits were then reviewed by the regional manager, registered manager and nominated individual. This ensured there was adequate management oversight and accountability.

People were involved in regular activities that improved their engagement within the community and independence.

Managers gave us examples of how they established partnership work with relevant professionals and services, from the stage of assessing people's needs, to ongoing planning and review of care, to move on to alternative living arrangements that continued to support people's rehabilitation and independence.

Partners told us the service worked well with them to meet the needs of people.

During this inspection, we found the service worked well with other professionals to meet the needs of people.

Staff told us they felt confident to make any suggestions and share any issues, and told us management were receptive to their feedback.

There were several opportunities or people using the service to provide feedback about the care they received. This included questionnaires, meeting and a forum for people who were being supported by the provided, including from other services. There was evidence that learning from incidents and quality assurance issues identified were being used to improve the service provided. Patterns and trends were analysed on a monthly basis by the management team, and actions required were listed and acted upon.