Imola

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 changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Leaders had a shared direction that made sure each individual person was at the centre of their support when decisions about their lives were being made. The registered manager and staff showed a commitment to provide high-quality person-centred care, that was open, inclusive and empowering, and aimed to improve people’s experience and wellbeing. Closed culture risks were identified, assessed and mitigated. This promoted a culture of openness and collaboration. For example, there was a ‘friends and family audit’ where relatives of people living at other services owned by the provider could come and check Imola was running well. This promoted a culture of openness and collaboration.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Management had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Relatives told us that Imola was well managed. We received positive feedback from staff about the management team and the improvements they have seen. One staff member said, “The home is so much more organised now.” Another staff member told us, “This is a good home, we have clear direction now and good communication.” Another staff member said, “I am really supported, and the managers deeply care about the wellbeing of the guys (people).” Professionals told us there had been earlier incidents that highlighted staff cultural issues which management were alert to and pro-active in addressing them quickly.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had set up a provider staff forum where two representatives [Freedom to Speak Up Guardians] from each of their services meet regularly and are the voice of the staff team and people using the service to bring concerns or ideas to share in a safe environment. We saw that management actively promoted staff empowerment to drive improvement. They encouraged staff to raise concerns and promote the value of doing so. All staff were confident that their voices will be heard. One staff member told us, “We have good opportunities to have a say and put forward suggestions, there is an open door, and I can always speak with management.” Another told us, “We have supervisions, they are fair and provide us with the opportunity to express our feelings or any concerns we may have.” There was evidence to show when concerns had been raised, leaders investigated sensitively and confidentially, lessons were shared and acted on. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and posters displayed informing staff how they could speak up with any concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff told us and records confirmed there were regular and varied meetings and handovers to support an inclusive team culture. Management told us staff were encouraged to bring aspects of their culture into the service such as celebrations and cooking. Staff from overseas were supported with British culture and cooking British meals. There was evidence to show management made reasonable adjustments to support staff with their health to carry out their roles well.

Governance, accountability, and performance management was not always reliable and effective. Systems were not regularly reviewed. There were a wide range of audits completed to support the running of the service, and any shortfalls found were fed into an action log. However, improvement was needed to complete the quality assurance cycle. For example, further detail was needed of the failing; the comment column was incomplete and did not inform how the issue came about or how it should be addressed to ensure it is not repeated. There were no systems in place to check or review to ensure any action taken was the right action to address the issue successfully, or not, and ensure sustainability of improvement or a change in practice. Staff completed IPC audits quarterly, but these were not frequent enough to minimise the risk of infection. The provider acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Notifications were consistently sent to external organisations as needed. There were systems in place to check whether people were meeting the goals of their PBS plans and these showed fewer restrictive interventions, a decrease in emotional behaviour and positive changes in people’s abilities and wellbeing.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Staff and leaders worked in partnership with key organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. The model of care was in line with current best practice guidance right support, right care, right culture. There were systems in place to ensure people and their relatives, staff, professionals and stakeholders are involved in developing and evaluating improvement and innovation initiatives. There were processes in place to ensure that learning happens when things go wrong, and from examples of good practice. A professional told us, “Staff were assistive in investigating issues and cooperated in implementing resolutions.”