Kings Lynn Supported Living

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 found a clear leadership structure with the Service manager and team managers who were present during the site visits. Staff told us that they had regular supervisions and monthly team meetings. We saw evidence of house meetings. External professionals and relatives told us that there was always prompt responses from the management team, and a good working relationship. We found that Support plan documents were not always complete, and there were still documents within the care plans from the previous service manager. Where risk assessments were present, these had not been reviewed within the last 12 months. Within the new support plan documents, safeguards and procedures to mitigate risks had not been effectively captured. We were not always sure the role of the team managers and what training they had been given for their role. The service was in the process of transferring all care plans onto a new template which brought together all people's needs simplified document. The manager told us that work was ongoing to move all documents digital, and shared the digital strategy document for the organisation.

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 manager was experienced in their field and displayed genuine compassion and interest in the people and staff. Staff development was a priority and recently two team members were promoted to team managers. Staff we spoke to said, they felt supported within their role. One staff member had returned from a period of sickness, and felt they had received enough support from the manager. Staff spoken with felt they were well trained and supported and able to raise concerns with confidence these would be acted upon. Staff completed safeguarding training and positive behavioural support to help them support people in the least restrictive way. Staff said there was a good culture and that staff generally got on and worked well together and as a team and were empowered to raise ideas and problem solve.

The manager and team managers were visible in the service and monitored the level of care and support being provided to people whilst empowering staff to make decisions with people through regular house meetings and key worker meetings where peoples wishes were established.

Staff told us that the manager was approachable and resolved issues quickly. An external partner told us that "The manager is easy to talk to and the service users’ best interests are first and foremost for her and this is fed down to her team. Another person told us that the manager was very responsive to change and embraced improvement ideas.

The manager told us continuous improvement was their driving force. She was committed to improving the lives of the people within the service, and to develop the staff. There was a positive atmosphere within the service on each visit, and the impact and direction of the manager was clear to see.

Staff were happy to speak with us and keen for us to see the support they offered people. Staff said they felt confident that where issues were raised, the management team would support them through it. Staff felt empowered and trusted to communicate with external professionals.

The manager and team managers were visible within services and people told us they knew how to complain. Relatives told us that they knew the process for raising complaints, and where they had issues, these had been resolved, and they received feedback. There was a whistleblowing policy in place, and there were posters within the service directing people on how to speak up.

Staff were recruited based on the needs of the people being supported. Some of the staff had worked within the service for over 15 years and felt the manager was fair and treated everyone with respect. Staff had contact with the management team through regular meetings and supervision. Staff felt their opinion mattered.

The provider had a fair recruitment process and we saw staff files with the required level of compliance. There was a staff well being board where a range of supportive information was available for staff. Staff were listened to, through regular supervisions and staff meetings. The manager and deputy were visible on site and available to speak to staff when necessary.

There were systems in place for the delivery of safe care. We observed that there were gaps in in recording of peoples daily notes during our first visit, and these had been addressed when we went back for a second visit. We were unsure if staff were reporting all incidents, as some of the recording treated incidents like usual known behaviour. this was brought to the attention of the service manager.

There were processes and procedures in place for the safe delivery of personal care. We saw that the provider embraced improvement recommendations from the Local Authority Quality Monitoring officer, and safeguarding incidents were reported and investigated in a timely manner. We observed the manager and team managers had started reviewing daily care notes as part of their duties, meaning issues were resolved in a timely manner, and staff could get much needed support immediately. The service had a dynamic action plan, that captured current issues from both internal and external audits.

We saw great examples of partnership working with people. A person had recently moved in, and was still spending some time at home while they transitioned to their new home. Their relative told us that there was good communication with the manager and staff, and there was always staff present to welcome their relative back after a period spent at home. Three people within the service were now on reduced medication following partnership work with the GP surgeries and other health professionals.

Staff spoke confidently of the importance of sharing information and working with other services to improve outcomes for people. we saw staff booking appointments and supporting people to access other health services and activities.

We spoke to health professional who told us that there was good communication with the management at staff at Kings Lynn Supported Living. Information was shared regularly and incidents were reported to the relevant authorities in a timely manner. One person told us "our experience of the care of King’s Lynn Supported Living has been excellent and this opinion is held by our team of over 30 volunteers".

The provider had processes and policies in place. There was good communication with other professionals. The manager told us that some decisions within the service required a multidisciplinary approach, and these were organised as required. The provider had a service improvement plan that was regularly updated and lessons learned were cascaded down to the staff.

We found that staff knew people's needs and supported them effectively. However recording was poor and some people had days where daily records were not completed. Opportunities for learning for staff included training, team meetings and supervisions.

Through the opportunities for learning, the manager encouraged reflective practice to ensure that learning from incidents was integrated into practice to enhance the support provided. Recently identified issues from the internal audit had been added onto the service improvement plan. the manager had started to address the issue of poor recording, and at our final visit we could see marked improvement.