Sugarman Health and Wellbeing - Liverpool

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

The provider was working to ensure they had good governance and effective systems for monitoring people’s care. Where people had given feedback on inconsistencies in staff support, this had not always been addressed by the previous management team. The new manager was planning to rectify this and improve oversight in this area. This was supported by input from the quality manager who had identified and begun to act upon the majority of the issues found during this assessment. The management team completed a range of audits to identify and make improvements to the service people received. There was a focus on continuous learning and there were processes in place to support this. People’s care was amended to reflect their changing needs and following accidents and incidents. The management team understood the importance of delivering care in line with the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance.

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.

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.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

The provider had been working to ensure they had good governance and effective systems for monitoring quality. Some feedback from relatives indicated they felt the quality and approach of staff varied, and felt this had not always been identified and addressed by the previous management team. Oversight of staff performance was a focus of the new manager. Prior to the assessment, the provider had planned to undertake unannounced spot checks of care delivery and reviews of people's care to address some of the staffing concerns raised. The service was supported by a quality team. The quality manager appeared knowledgeable and had oversight of improvements being worked on. The manager advised they had a target of 98% compliance with staff training. Staff spoke positively of the return of the previous registered manager to the manager's role.

A schedule of audits were in place as well as a compliance tracker to ensure there was management oversight of care delivery. Regular reviews were undertaken with action plans to oversee improvements to people's care. Issues identified during our assessment had in the main, been identified through the provider's own governance and action was already being taken to make improvements.

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.

There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement and there was a programme of learning and development. The manager was aware of and took account of the Right support, right care, right culture guidance. Staff understood the process for reporting and recording accidents and incidents and the importance of improving people's care.

Lessons learned processes were completed following significant events and learning was shared to improve good practice. This was supported by a program of learning and development for all staff. People's care plans were updated following incidents and managers reviewed these with staff to ensure risks were reduced in the future. Each service had key performance indicators, which enabled managers to ensure improvements were being made in a timely way.