Qualitcare24-7 Ltd Portsmouth

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 75 (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 vision of the care they wanted to provide which was available in people’s care plans which staff had access to. Systems were in place to maintain oversight on how staff worked in line with this vision which included staff meetings, supervisions and obtaining people’s feedback. The provider was also aware of the need to support people’s and staff’s diverse cultures and backgrounds and the potential impact that could have on the care provided. For example, some staff’s culture meant death and dying was not a common conversation, however people’s care needs could include supporting people at that stage of life. Leaders had recognised this and had systems in place to train and support staff through this aspect of care provision, which meant people received a good standard of care at this stage of their journey.

Leaders were transparent when problems occurred and communicated with external professionals and people and their relatives.

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. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The management structure included team leaders, administration staff and compliance as well as a visible and present leadership team who staff confirmed were approachable and available to them. Leaders we spoke to were knowledgeable about the people they supported and were able to describe their individual needs and any actions in progress. Staff told us they were treated fairly and thought leaders had the appropriate knowledge and experience and they understood who to approach in the office team for support if needed.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff we spoke to all confirmed they were aware of and could access the whistleblowing policy and knew how and when to speak up. Leaders told us staff completed yearly training which included freedom to speak up, regular staff meetings were held where staff could raise concerns and contact numbers for external agencies for staff to contact were available to them in the policy.

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.

The provider recruited overseas staff and supported them during their transition to employment and living in the UK. This supported the overseas recruits to feel equal in the company and able to adjust to a different culture. Ongoing support and training were provided to staff to support understanding of diversity among the workforce and staff we spoke to told us they were happy in their teams and felt supported by management.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The management team were allocated specific roles including team leaders, office manager, administration and registered manager. Office and care staff knew who to go to with different concerns and felt confident to do so. For example, the office manager oversaw compliance and monitored care staff completing tasks during care visits. If any concerns noted, the office manager would follow up with care staff and take action where required. Care staff also told us they knew who to approach in the office for different reasons and regularly did so.

Systems and processes were in place to identify and act on concerns and risks when they occurred. These included internal audits, regular care plan reviews, reviewing people's feedback and unannounced staff spot checks. These were overseen by leaders who demonstrated a good understanding of performance and outcomes for people and staff within the service.

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.

Records showed how the provider and their staff worked with health and social care professionals to benefit the people using the service. People we spoke to told us they were happy with how this benefitted their care. One person told us of the support they received from staff with their medical condition which included referring to nurses when required.

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. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The quality of the service was monitored through regular audits. Feedback was obtained from people and their relatives through review meetings and team leader home visits to identify any issues with the care. Staff were also asked for feedback during staff meetings and supervisions. The information was used to identify possible improvements to the service. Staff completed a range of training courses to keep them up to date with best practice. Policies were in place, regularly reviewed and staff confirmed they had access to them.