Taylor Support Hub

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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and processes they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were consistently person-focused and there was a positive culture within the service. One staff member said, “If I was to summarise the culture of the company it would be person centred care supporting to maintain the persons privacy and dignity. We have open communication and teamwork – it’s like a big family. I think we have an amazing team, every day we have a chance to make a difference to somebodies life.” Another staff member said, “I think the key values of the organisation are listening, we listen to the people we support, management listen to staff. Teamwork is very strong here; we support each other to get the best outcomes. Management is very consistent, and this help us.” The management team were also positive about the staff team. One member of the management team said, “Staff do all pull together and work as a team really well.”

The provider ensured staff had the right ethos to work at the company. While improvements were needed to ensure there were robust recording of recruitment, there was a thorough ‘vetting’ of staff to ensure they had the right values to support people. The provider tried to match staff with people to ensure they had similar interests and got on well, as well as prospective staff meeting people during the interview process to see what people thought of them and how staff interacted with people. The provider followed the guidance, ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ as there was an open and person-centred focus and culture in the service.

Staff consistently felt they could approach the registered manager and management team if needed. One staff member told us, “I think management are the best thing about working here, they make a real difference.”

The management team were compassionate and inclusive leaders, who had people at the heart of their care service. They had a person-centred and positive focus in order to develop the people they supported. However, the processes they had in place were not always effective so we could not be sure the leadership were capable in their oversight of the quality and safety of care.

Staff consistently felt able to approach the management team. One staff member said, “I have the opportunity to feedback any issues I have, we have team meetings, and I have supervisions with [manager] but I know I could raise anything at any time.”

We reviewed minutes of meetings involving staff after concerns had been raised, in order to address these concerns. However, concerns relating to people were not always effectively recorded so it was not always possible to determine what actions had been taken. Therefore, the management team needed to improve their recording processes to evidence how they were reacting to when staff have spoken up.

Staff from a variety of backgrounds worked for the provider and staff felt comfortable to challenge if they felt something was not right. Staff told us they enjoyed working at Taylor Support Hub and consistently told us they would recommend it to others to work. One staff member said, “I think it is a great company to work for and I have recommended several friends to apply for jobs here.” Another staff member said, “I have recommended my friends to come and work here.”

We saw a documented example where a staff member had raised a concern about a colleague, they had been dealt with sensitively and action taken to resolve the situation, so we could be confident equality and inclusion issues would be resolved.

The management team were receptive to feedback. Steps had been taken in response to the feedback received following the last inspection, however not all areas of improvement had been fully resolved. The management team acknowledged there were still areas for them to improve on. Leaders acknowledged they had not carried out consistent ‘spot checks’ on staff and recording of the oversight they had was not always effective. One member of the leadership team said, “We need to be formally recording things.” The management told us about improvements they were considering ensuring staff always had access to the most recent information about people, as the management team acknowledged care plans were a live document that would need updating regularly. The provider acknowledged the size of the service had grown faster than they had planned for which had impacted their ability to have effective oversight of the service.

The provider’s medicine policy did not cover ‘over the counter’ medicines but we saw reference to this type of medicine potentially being needed in a person’s care records. The medicine policy also referred to the provider requiring certain assessments for covert medicines. However, they had not followed their own policy, and these were not in place. The provider had policies in place regarding data protection. However, these did not cover the use of personal mobile phones by staff and expectations around this and it was not clear whether communication on personal mobiles was being monitored to ensure it remained appropriate. The provider was not completing their own risk assessments in accordance with their own procedures, so it was not clear they were effectively assessing and reducing the risks to people. The provider had documents in place to track different types of incidents. However, this information was not being used to identify trends of themes to review whether there was any learning opportunities from incidents. There was 1 instance of unclear recording about a safeguarding concern. Action had been taken to protect the person, but this had been fully recorded to evidence this. Following our feedback, the registered manager told us they had updated their records to improve recording in the future. There was a lack of documented ‘spot checks’ to check the quality and safety of care and the management team said they knew they needed to improve in this area and needed to record these. Recruitment processes were not always robust. The provider’s application form did not allow applicants to record their full employment history, which is a requirement, and the provider had not recognised this failure. There were also no audits of recruitment records to ensure all necessary information was recorded. Following the last inspection, the provider sent us an action plan about how they would improve. Action taken had not been fully effective to make imp

Relatives were complimentary about the approachability of the management team. However, relatives felt the governance of the service needed improving. One relative said, “The management aren’t exactly brilliant. [Management team member] is very good with the kids. I don’t think the skill level is there to run the business. It would help if we had one point of contact rather than been called or emailed by multiple different people and information not been passed on to the right people. It’s not managed very well. Management structure is not great. They could be a lot clearer about what’s going on. It can be confusing at times. It has always been like it.”

Staff told us they would contact professionals as necessary, such as emergency services, if they needed to. However, relatives generally led on the liaising with health professionals. The management team were able to tell us examples where they had worked with other partners, such as the local authority or mental health services to develop a consistent approach when supporting a person.

Other professionals were positive about the management team and felt the provider worked in partnership. One professional said, “I have known the registered manager for a while now and they are approachable, kind, caring and compassionate. Every member of staff and management that I have met come across well and are polite and considerate.” Another professional said, “[Director] and [Registered manager] are a pleasure to work with.”

The provider did work in partnership with relatives and other professionals; however, they were not always able to evidence this in their processes or in people’s care records. While relatives generally led on contact with professionals, the provider had not always verified the advice received, even if their staff were those supporting a person in relation to a need. There were instances where advice from a relevant professional had not been gained about the administration of medicines so we could not be sure appropriate partners would be consulted.

Staff told us they were encouraged to learn and improve. One staff member said, “Management want us to be the best and support us with our professional development. We are always offered training opportunities.” Another staff member said, “I think the management are very approachable and I would not hesitate to speak to them if I had any suggestions or concerns.” The provider said, “We have previously been a stepping stone [to other employment] but we want staff to see it as somewhere to stay to work.” There was a growing cohort of staff who had worked for the provider long term; the provider was passionate about developing staff and demonstrating to staff there was a career in social care and opportunity to grow in their role.

The service was an innovative model that supported people using a variety of arrangements to best suit individuals. The management team tracked and recorded staff member’s training and were proactive in seeking out new training opportunities for staff. However, the provider had not effectively learned following the last inspection and concerns over the oversight and recording practices in the service had persisted. The provider had attempted to make changes and had engaged support from an external source, but this had still not been effective.