Napier Homecare Services Limited

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. The provider had a clear shared vision and a culture that placed people at the centre of the service. Leaders and staff consistently demonstrated a commitment to delivering person‑centred, flexible support that responded to people’s changing needs. People told us they felt listened to. The provider adapted support when people requested changes.

Staff described the culture as positive, supportive and open. They told us they felt valued, were able to approach managers, and felt their wellbeing was taken seriously. Team meetings were held regularly and were well recorded, showing good knowledge among staff and reinforcing key expectations, including reporting responsibilities and values-based practice. A staff member told us , “The registered manager is a good manager, she wants to keep improving what we do.”

The provider promoted inclusive practice and paid attention to people’s cultural and religious needs.

Evidence from meetings with people showed that the provider ensured individuals’ voices influenced how the service developed, helping maintain a shared sense of purpose across the organisation.

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. Leadership was visible, compassionate and inclusive. The registered manager spoke passionately about her role and demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s and staff’s experiences by remaining hands‑on in care delivery. Staff told us they felt supported by leaders who were approachable, flexible and responsive to their needs, and they valued the availability of regular 1:1 sessions to discuss wellbeing.

Leaders promoted an open culture and ensured staff understood their responsibilities regarding safeguarding, risk reporting and professional standards. Staff described management as receptive to feedback, and people receiving support also spoke positively about the leadership team.

The provider ensured senior staff were competent through regular assessments by peers and maintained oversight of recruitment processes, which were organised, complete and in line with regulations. This contributed to a culture where staff felt confident in their leaders’ capability and fairness.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.Staff told us they felt heard and able to approach management with concerns or suggestions. The provider had processes in place to ensure staff understood their responsibility to report issues, and team meeting notes showed that expectations about reporting and communication were clearly set out.

People using the service and their families also had opportunities to provide feedback regularly, and support was adapted following concerns or requests, reinforcing trust in the provider’s approach.

The provider operated clear systems to learn from incidents and communicated lessons learned throughout the team, helping create an environment where raising concerns led to meaningful action.

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 supported a culture of equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff received training in equality and diversity and showed awareness of protected characteristics and how these shaped people’s support needs.

The service recorded and respected people’s cultural and religious needs, providing staff with clear guidance, Staff reported flexibility in their rotas and described management as considerate of their individual circumstances.

People’s communication needs and preferred methods were recorded in detail. Staff also understood their responsibilities regarding GDPR, ensuring people from diverse backgrounds had their privacy respected.

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. Governance arrangements were effective and ensured the service was well organised. Recruitment files were structured and complete, including essential checks and induction documentation. The provider maintained strong oversight of training, competency assessments and supervision, including arrangements for senior staff peer assessments.

Risk management was generally good, with clear processes for reporting, learning from incidents and ensuring staff understood their responsibilities.

The provider monitored quality through meetings with people, regular reviews and clear documentation.

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. The provider worked well with external partners to ensure people received coordinated support. There was strong evidence of partnership working with GPs, and staff were proactive in supporting people to access health services, sometimes going beyond their remit to ensure continuity of care.

The provider engaged regularly with people and their representatives, and meeting minutes showed that feedback informed service improvements.

This collaborative approach helped maintain consistency, strengthened relationships across the community and reduced the risk of missed or duplicated support. One staff member told us, “We have the same aims.”

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 provider demonstrated a commitment to learning and ongoing improvement. Incidents were investigated effectively, and there was a clear process for sharing lessons learned across the staff team. Staff told us communication was strong, and the provider reinforced learning through meetings, guidance and competency reviews.

The service reviewed people’s care regularly and made changes to support based on feedback, demonstrating a responsive and reflective approach.