Select Lifestyles 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

There were governance systems in place and staff understood their role and responsibilities. Managers accounted for the actions, behaviours, and performance of staff and worked in partnership with local authorities and quality teams to improve the quality of care and service provided. However, records were not always effectively monitored to ensure information was accurate and up to date. Audits were in place, however, these were not always effective in identifying the concerns we identified during this assessment.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had clear visions and values. Staff and management understood the importance of listening to the views of people and their relatives about the service. The provider and scheme manager were working with the staff team to build open and transparent relationships and improve morale.

Processes ensured staff had a shared vision and values regarding the care and support delivered. People and their relatives had been provided with clear information on how to raise suggestions and concerns about the service. Feedback from relatives was regularly sent out to seek people’s views about the service, enabling them to contribute to development of the service provided. Risk assessment and care planning processes resulted in care plans acknowledging people’s diverse needs.

Staff told us they were aware of who the registered manager was, however, staff we spoke with told us they didn’t see the registered manager at the houses often. Staff told us the management team were approachable and always available for support. In one supported living property, staff told us the management team had improved and they felt the service was better from this new leadership. People were aware of the registered manager and knew how to contact them if required. One staff member told us,” [Scheme manager] is so approachable, goes above and beyond to help us”.

Management working across separate CQC registered offices of the organisation did not always share good practices as an organisation'. For example, where leaders had implemented auditing for keeping people's monies safe and auditing medication, this had not filtered across to all areas of the providers registered offices. We found some managers would have good systems in place that were not shared across to other houses. Staff had regular supervisions. Team meetings were regular, these allowed people to speak up. We saw management listened to staff and actions from meetings were taken. There was a scheme manager on site daily and when a manager was not present a 24/7 on call system was in place. The provider had a system in place for when staff called in unable to attend their shift. We saw evidence where this was either picked up by a staff team member or the scheme manager would step in to cover the shortfall.

Staff told us they knew about the service’s whistleblowing policy and knew how to raise concerns. Staff were also aware they could report and concerns directly to the Care Quality Commission and the local safeguarding team.

There was a whistle blowing policy in place. Staff were informed about this as part of their induction. Staff could access the policy if needed at any time. People had information provided to them, this allowed them to know how to raise a concern and their right to speak up.

Staff felt the management team took into account their equality, diversity and inclusion needs and treated them fairly. For example, where staff needed to work in a flexible way, this was discussed with the manager and alterations to staffs working pattern would be made. Staff felt the provider promoted a good work life balance. Staff told us they attended regular staff meetings, which were productive and enabled them to openly raise issues and concerns. The provider evidenced they valued the staff teams, this was by recognition awards, hampers for special occasions were given to staff, for example, maternity hampers.

The provider had policies and procedures around equality, diversity and inclusion. We found guidance and information was also available in the employee’s handbook.

The provider had audits in place to monitor aspects of the service delivered. Not all audits completed by management, were effective in identifying concerns we found during this inspection.

Audits were completed in each supported living property. However, these were not always effective in identifying concerns. For example, medication audits did not identify topical creams not having open dates on, this has the risk of out-of-date prescribed creams been used. Medication such as adult paracetamol was also found to be open without any open date on, this meant that medication could be used past the directed instructions of not using 2 months after opening. Additional audits such as fire audits did not identify safety concerns. For example, we identified a fire exit that had a key lock, the key was stored in the opposite side of the building. In the event of a fire this would prevent this from being a clear fire exit. The provider responded promptly to the shortfalls identified and adjusted their process to reduce the potential risks to errors in medication'. Management had a training matrix in place to monitor the compliance of the service. This was regularly checked by locality managers and the registered managers, where action was required, we saw management completed this in a responsive timescale.

People and relatives told us staff assisted them in arranging support from other healthcare services as needed. One person told us when we asked them if they had support to the doctors, ‘Yes, staff take me’.

Staff and management we found collaborated with all relevant professionals, stakeholders and agencies, such as district nurses and general practitioners. Staff supported people to health professional visits, we saw where family members wished to be involved in the appointment arrangements were made for them to participate in visit.

We saw examples of the management team sharing safeguarding concerns with the local authority, safeguarding team and care quality commission. All concerns were shared in a timely manner and where an investigation was required this took place in a responsive time frame. The service was transparent and active in looking at ways to continually improve the service provided. Accidents and incidents were reported and recorded in line with the policies and procedures of the provider. This meant risks to people were further mitigated by the sharing of information about possible risks with other services for consideration and possible investigation.

Staff were still learning the new electronic system that had recently been put in place. Staff and some of the management team we spoke with told us, they didn’t fully understand the system and found it difficult to navigate around. This meant that recordings were not always completed to the highest standard. The provider and registered manager throughout the assessment showed commitment to improve and took our feedback positively. Staff were observed providing good and respectful support to people. We did find a lack of knowledge and understanding around the right support, right care and right culture guidance.

Improvement had been made since the last inspection. For example, in the electronic system using for care plans and risk assessments, these were detailed and improved since the last inspection. Daily notes recorded the support people were receiving. A medication system was in place, this was a live system and monitored daily, this effectively meant the provider could act and learn from any errors or concerns picked up on. However, concerns around safe care and treatment were identified and still present during this inspection.