Logic Care Solutions

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service and notifying CQC of important events.

This service scored 50 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.The staff gave mixed feedback about the culture of the service. Some staff reported a positive open culture where they felt empowered to raise any concerns or make suggestions. Other staff gave negative feedback. Comments included, “It is good”; “The culture is not perfect, she encourages us to sort it out amongst ourselves”; “There is no confidentiality the manager will tell the other person what you said, and this can cause problems” and “Cannot share anything about other carers or personal stuff. Very good around client’s confidentiality.” The registered manager and staff were passionate about the service and wanted to ensure people had good quality care and improved outcomes.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Some staff felt they were not listened to by the management team when they raised issues and concerns. Staff said, “[Registered manager] is very responsive and approachable. I feel listened to”; “We are supported, they listen and they motivate”; “There is no support, and we are always told we can’t be losing money even at the detriment of staff” and “They listen to you when you are there then when you leave, they will ring the person and tell them what you have said and you become the black sheep. I have been told keep quiet by other carers.”

Services providing health and social care to people are required to inform the CQC of important events that happen in the service. This is so we can check that appropriate action has been taken. Concerns were not always reported to CQC when they should have been. The provider had not informed CQC of notifiable incidents such as safeguarding alerts. The concerns were reported to the local authority as an accusation of abuse, but a notification was not sent to CQC, and it needed to be as this is a legal requirement. After the assessment visit the registered manager submitted these in retrospect. Other notifications had been submitted as appropriate.

The management team knew people well and were passionate about making sure people received good quality care. Staff understood their responsibilities to meet regulatory requirements.

People did not feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Staff confirmed they were invited to meetings and encouraged to contribute. However, they did not always feel listened to. A staff member said, “Issue with raising things as the management are all family, I think there is only 1 person in the office who is not related.” Some staff told us they were encouraged to voice their ideas for improvements and any concerns. The provider had a whistle blowing policy in place. However, we received mixed feedback from staff about how to raise concerns with the provider or outside organisations if they needed to. Some staff said they don’t feel listened to and would not raise concerns. Another member of staff said, “I would whistle blow if it is not right.”

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 registered manager told us staff care packages included; flexible working, during fasting staff were offered support, time off to go to church, support during Eid, Christmas and other celebrations. Staff had access to the Blue Light card (discount service for social care sector). The registered manager pointed staff towards money off and offers, ran a recommend a friend scheme, offered employee support to gain mental health support and access to counsellors.

Staff told us they were supported where necessary with reasonable adjustments in relation to their personal, health or religious needs such as changes to shift patterns to support childcare arrangements.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service. Some audits had been carried out. There were monthly audits of infection control, hand hygiene, medicines, and staff files. The audits were not always robust enough to highlight and manage shortfalls and areas for improvement in the service. For example, the audit of training had not identified that staff had not completed diabetes training and the issues with medicines. Audits had not detected that care plans and risk assessments were lacking detail and were not always up to date and accurate. There were no audits of accidents and incidents. Where audits had found actions that needed addressing, actions had been recorded, and the management team had signed off items that had been addressed.

The provider had not been following their own complaints policy. Complaints had not been formally acknowledged and when the complaint had been investigated, the complainant did not receive a formal outcome. A person told us, “When I complain, the manager does nothing. I’ve given up on them.”

People's personal records were stored securely including on computers and applications on devices, these were protected by passwords, so that only staff who had been authorised to access the information could do so.

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 registered manager was keen to build links with partnership agencies and had liaised with the local authority and local integrated care board. The registered manager was involved in forums and events to keep abreast of local and national developments in health and social care. The registered manager gained peer support from other registered managers and providers within the care system.

A local authority care manager told us that the service had been responsive when complaints or concerns had come up. They fed back that a person had told them that some staff had been talking in their own language when providing care and support which made the person feel uncomfortable. They told us,

“This issue was raised to [registered manager]. I contacted the client the following day, client was very happy. [Registered manager] had been to visit and apologised for any issues that she has come across and noted that it was not acceptable for the carers to do this and that she would speak with the carers directly and ensure that this does not happen again. Client was very pleased, she reported that [registered manager] is very understanding, and a wonderful person and that [registered manager] will contact her in one month to see how she is and if there are any other issues.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The local authority quality monitoring team had been supporting the service for some time with trying to improve the quality of care plans and risk assessments. They told us the provider had been using an electronic care plan system which had brought about some improvements. They advised, “There is still work to be done. Provider continues to send documents to assess but improvement is slow.” During the assessment we found that the provider and registered manager had not embedded the advice and guidance from the local authority across the service to ensure care plans and risk assessments were consistent, detailed and robust.

The registered manager told us they had reviewed the feedback we gave them as part of the onsite and offsite assessment process and valued this. They were using the feedback to make improvements to the service and to put systems in place to embed the changes.