SeeAbility - Bicester Support Service

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

We identified 1 breach of legal regulation in relation to governance as effective systems and processes to make sure the provider assessed and monitored the service was not always well documented. Audits did not identify concerns that were found during assessment. There was no oversight of incidents to monitor for themes and trends, and team meetings did not always record actions or document who’s responsibility it was to complete actions and in what timeframe. The provider had quality assurance systems which identified areas of improvement, there wasn’t always effective oversight of incidents which would allow to monitor for themes and trends. We heard about action taken to manage these risks, and the provider told us further quality assurances would be put in place following the assessment. We received mixed feedback from staff about the support they received from the provider. Supervision and team meetings took place in which information could be shared and staff voices heard. However not all staff found these meetings useful and felt further work around support available to them and people using the service could be improved.

This service scored 62 (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.

Staff we spoke to gave mixed feedback about the management of the service. We heard staff did not always feel they could approach the manager for support, as they were not always visible, and at times could be unapproachable. We also heard staff felt confident to raise concerns with the manager and they were fair and approachable. Leaders told us they were working closely with staff in order to ensure positive working relationships within the team.

The manager had been in post for 5 months and had previous experience of working with people with a learning disability and autistic people. Supervision notes documented supportive practice from the manager and there were actions in place to follow up on. Team meeting minutes documented compassionate care and understanding for people using the service and staff.

There was a whistleblowing procedure in place and staff we spoke to were aware of the procedure and how to access it. Despite receiving some positive feedback about support received from the manager of the service, some staff felt they were not always heard in relation to incidents, as they did not always feel listened to or supported. Some staff did not always feel clear on what their job role was.

Team meetings and supervisions took place in which staff could discuss concerns. The provider told us there was a positive culture in the service where staff were encouraged to speak up. It was well documented staff were listened to within supervision and team meetings and evidence that concerns were valued. However, it was not always well documented where action was taken on these concerns.

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.

Incidents were recorded by staff through monitoring charts which alerted management. Some staff we spoke to told us debriefs after incidents had begun to take place. However, not all staff felt involved in these discussions and felt they were not always listened to where they had improvement ideas about the service. Staff felt team meetings could be more frequent in order to capture the support being provided to people using the service.

The provider had quality assurance systems and an action plan in place which documented actions relating to service improvement. This plan contained actions from January 2024 around carrying out observations for all staff which had not yet been implemented, and did not always identify concerns raised by staff such as the CCTV not working, which staff felt was integral to people’s safety. Regular checks such as audits had taken place to ensure the quality of the service was monitored. Audits did not always accurately identify the concerns found during assessment such as ‘when required’ protocols missing. Where concerns had been raised by staff, it wasn’t always clear what action was taken, and there was no oversight of the action taken following service user feedback. We were assured the manager had taken action around incidents and safeguarding’s, as the manager was able to discuss the actions taken at the time in which the concern was raised, however this was not always well documented. There was a system for monitoring incidents in which staff filled out records and management were alerted about these. Individual incident forms allowed for recording of action taken, however, there was no oversight of these incidents to monitor for themes and trends. We were assured the manager had taken action around incidents, and the provider told us they would update their systems to ensure they had oversight of work carried out by the service. Team meeting minutes did not always document actions, and where actions were documented, there was no indication of whos' responsibility this was to complete actions and in what timeframe, there was no overarching action plan in place to monitor this.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Overall staff felt communication was managed well and knew where to record information and look for updates. Some staff felt communication between staff could be managed better to ensure clear messages were received by all staff. Although team meetings took place, some staff felt this didn’t always allow for all people who use the service to be discussed which limited sharing of learning and improvements and safeguarding updates were not always shared with staff.

There were systems and process in place which documented learning and improvements. Regular meetings took place with the regional head of operations who had oversight of the service and actions logged in order to monitor for improvements. We heard about key challenges that the manager had actions in place for, although these were not documented within the service improvement plan, we saw that these actions had taken place within meetings minutes. We saw where improvements to people’s wellbeing had been made and positive outcomes from this.