Independent Supported Living and Disabilities Ltd Also known as ISLAD

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 2 breaches of the regulations. The provider did not operate effective quality assurance systems to oversee the service. These systems did not identify shortfalls in the quality and safety of the service or ensure that expected standards were met. The provider did not inform us about notifiable incidents in a timely manner.

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.

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 manager told us they communicated with staff to share information and act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this with others when appropriate. The manager told us they worked with other senior management team to carry out checks and audits as part of oversight and monitoring of the service. The manager told us they oversaw and managed behaviours and performance of staff as and when needed in a form of spot checks. However, they were not able to provide further evidence this was completed on a regular basis. The nominated individual added there were some changes ongoing in the service including how some checks would be completed. This would also help check that the quality assurance system was effective as there was not such process in place. Staff we spoke with felt the service was well led. One staff member told us, “very open communication, we have meetings for staff to express how they are feeling". However, the evidence we have collected demonstrated the provider did not always ensure there was effective and clear oversight of the service and its quality.

The provider did not ensure all the concerns we found during this assessment and site visit that are described throughout the report, were identified through their own quality monitoring systems. Audits did not include information pertaining to how the provider was proactively monitoring the peoples’ care and support, and the quality of the service provided. The provider failed to demonstrate any themes and trends were identified using feedback and outcomes of the audits. The provider did not ensure there was a clear process to submit notifications to the CQC as required. At least 3 reportable incidents were not notified to CQC. The provider did not ensure they kept accurate and complete records for the purposes of people’s care and support. For example, the risk assessments, support plans and hospital passports did not always have accurate information. For one person, the support plan noted they could express their pain or ailment however the risk assessment noted this would not be possible. It did not offer any further guidance for staff to ensure they were able to identify any issues from non-verbal cues if the person was not able to express they were unwell. The daily notes were often illegible and basic, without clear record to demonstrate the staff have followed support plans and risk assessments to provide the care and support people needed. The provider failed to demonstrate they had effective systems to seek, review and analyse feedback from people, relatives and other stakeholders so they could use it for reviewing the service, its quality and to make improvements and development of the service. The provider had to improve their oversight and monitoring of overall service provided and records kept for it to ensure they were able to identify areas needing improvements promptly. The lack of effective governance and oversight meant the provider was unable to promptly identify concerns that could put people at risk of harm.

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.

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