Eeze Care London

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.

At our previous assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. At this assessment, enough improvement had been made, and the provider was no longer breaching this legal regulation.

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.

There was a positive and person-centred culture at the service. There were clear visions and values. Staff were aware of these and believed in them. Staff had opportunities to discuss best practice with managers and each other.

People using the service, staff and other stakeholders thought the service was well-managed. A staff member explained, “I believe the service promotes people’s dignity, independence, safety and wellbeing.”

An external professional commented, “[Eeze Care London] is our best tried and tested supported living provider, especially for [people with a learning disability and autistic people].”

There were capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders. The registered manager had left the company shortly before our assessment. They had worked alongside a new manager for 6 weeks providing a handover and induction. Both the registered manager and new manager were experienced and had qualifications in care management. The new manager told us they were in the process of applying to be registered with CQC. A relative commented, “The new manager is very approachable, and I have already spent a lot of time speaking with [them],”

Managers were supported by a board of directors who were involved in the running of the service and worked alongside managers and staff. Each of the supported living schemes had dedicated senior teams who oversaw the day-to-day operations.

People using the service, staff and other stakeholders found managers approachable, supportive and effective. Managers demonstrated a good understanding of regulatory requirements.

There were systems to enable staff and others to speak up when they felt something was wrong. Staff told us they knew what to do if they had concerns and felt confident speaking up. Managers were open, honest and transparent. When something went wrong, the provider apologised to people and explained the actions they were taking to prevent this happening again. A staff member explained, “I am always encouraged to whistle blow.” Staff spoke about how the management team had discussed the risks of a ‘closed culture’ with them. They told us they were encouraged to challenge poor practice and speak up if they had concerns about the actions of another staff member or professional.

There were policies and procedures to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us their individual needs and diversity needs were respected. The provider supported staff with flexible working arrangements. Comments from staff included, “Our employer respects the various cultural and religious needs of the staff” and “I feel that my particular differences are respected and have never felt discriminated against.”

There were effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. Staff and managers completed a range of audits. They used these to help identify where improvements were needed. The provider had sourced an external professional to carry out an assessment of the whole service based on the regulations for providing care. People using the service, staff, relatives and other stakeholders completed satisfaction surveys and provided written feedback about their experiences. The provider responded to these and took action when people wanted changes. There were a range of policies and procedures. These reflected national standards and legislation. Staff were familiar with these.

Staff worked in partnership with external professionals. They shared information and made timely referrals when people needed additional support. Staff followed guidance from others to help meet people’s needs. Managers liaised with other care managers and local authority representatives to discuss best practice and learn from each other when things went wrong. External professionals told us they had positive working relationships with the provider. A professional commented, “Communication with the staff and management team has been positive, and they have been responsive.” Staff supported people to access the local community and take part in social events, education and employment.

There was a learning culture. Staff reflected when things went wrong and discussed these to help make improvements to the service. Following incidents and complaints, the provider had sourced additional training and support for staff. They updated guidance and made changes to care practice. Staff completed a wide range of training which reflected the individual needs of people using the service.

The provider sought feedback from others. Managers carried out regular spot checks and audits of the service. They tested staff knowledge and skills. A manager told us, “We have recently drafted a new framework which will be the driver for our quality improvements.” They told us they had developed this in partnership with people using the service, staff and external stakeholders.