Privilege Home Care

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 provider was working hard to implement and drive improvements for how the service was managed. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 64 (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 and culture. They spoke passionately about their commitment to inclusivity, delivering person-centred care and ensuring people were consistently treated with dignity, respect and kindness. A statement of purpose was provided to people which reflected the provider’s vision and values.

Staff spoke positively about the provider’s values and provided examples of how they applied them to their day to day work. One staff member told us, “The client is very important and always our number 1 priority, that is what [the provider] tells us all the time.”

The provider was responsible for writing care plans, quality assurance, assessed staff’s competency and acted as the safeguarding lead. However, they had not had any training since 2010. This risked that the quality of their audits and oversight they provided to the service was not in line with current practice. The provider assured us they would complete training in key areas as an immediate priority and ensure they took responsibility for their ongoing learning and development.

Staff spoke positively about the provider and said they promoted an open and inclusive culture. Staff said they were approachable, accessible and would act appropriately if there were concerns. One staff member told us, “[The provider is] there when I need them, they make work feel like family.”

People told us the provider managed the service well and was responsive to their needs. One relative told us “If there is anything that we need sorting out [they] always get it organised very quickly.” Another relative told us, “We have [their] mobile number and we can get through easily whether it's evening or weekends.”

The provider was responsible for writing care plans, quality assurance, assessed staff’s competency and acted as the safeguarding lead. However, they had not had any training since 2010. This risked that the quality of their audits and oversight they provided to the service was not in line with current practice. The provider assured us they would complete training in key areas as an immediate priority and ensure they took responsibility for their ongoing learning and development.

Staff spoke positively about the provider and said they promoted an open and inclusive culture. Staff said they were approachable, accessible and would act appropriately if there were concerns. One staff member told us, “[The provider is] there when I need them, they make work feel like family.”

People told us the provider managed the service well and was responsive to their needs. One relative told us “If there is anything that we need sorting out [they] always get it organised very quickly.” Another relative told us, “We have [their] mobile number and we can get through easily whether it's evening or weekends.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce and encouraged an inclusive working environment. A diverse workforce was employed and staff were treated fairly and equitably in work. Since our last inspection the provider had implemented specialist software to support staff, where English was not their first language, in completing daily notes of care. People told us the diversity of the workforce enabled staff to meet their relatives religious and cultural needs.

Governance systems had been improved since our last assessment. Checks were now made of key records such as daily notes and care plans which improved oversight of the quality and safety of care provided. Some processes needed further improvement to ensure they continuously enhanced the quality of care. For example, audits of care plans had not identified and addressed shortfalls we identified in 1 person’s care records. Some audits also needed to record more detail, such as checks of staff competencies and service user questionnaires. The provider was receptive to feedback throughout the assessment and took a number of steps to address areas for improvement. They provided assurance they would take action to further improve their quality assurance systems.

People told us the service was well managed and there was nothing they felt could be improved. They told us the provider was accessible and would quickly and effectively respond to any concerns they raised. One relative told us the provider was a “good manager” and “will help us out when we need it.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership so people received good outcomes. People told us staff engaged with other professionals involved in their relatives’ care and followed their advice. The provider had established good links with local services and would regularly engage with health and social care professionals and used their advice and guidance to improve the safety and quality of care people received. Advice from partners was not always clearly recorded within people’s care records but this was an area the provider said they would work to improve.

The provider developed an improvement plan in response to their last inspection which was discussed during staff meetings. They said they would implement a new improvement plan in response to this assessment. Whilst it was positive the provider was receptive to feedback, we were concerned their improvement plans were limited to the findings of CQC inspections and therefore the provider did not have their own robust strategies to ensure continuous and innovative improvement of their service.

Staff meetings were used as an opportunity to refresh knowledge, identify lessons learned and as an opportunity to discuss ideas to improve the quality of care. Meeting minutes did not always fully reflect these discussions, but staff told us the provider encouraged them to share ideas and learning. People received annual care reviews and quality questionnaires, and these were used as opportunities to encourage people to suggest ideas for improvement.