Tender-Care 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 requires improvements. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvements. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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.We found that the registered manager’s vision did not always translate into a consistent person-centred service. We found that further work was required to clearly define the strategic direction of the service in relation to governance and assurance. This meant the provider did not always set clear outcomes, which contributed to the shortfalls we found during this inspection. We discussed this with the registered manager who understood the need to set a clearer direction to help improve safety, quality and the service overall.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the service 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. We found that leaders and managers were compassionate, and often still involved in care delivery which fed their passion for the work they did. There were some shortfalls in knowledge including regulation and legislation. This was reflected in the failure to identify issues within the service, as audits were not completed.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.People and their relatives were provided with various ways to give their views on the service. A person said, “The management listen to concerns and I know how to raise a concern, I very rarely need to do this.” Staff felt able to speak up and raise concerns within the service. They told us they felt supported by the management team and were confident they could share any worries or issues. This demonstrated an open and transparent culture where staff felt listened to. The registered manager told us, “We have an open-door policy.”. There was a whistleblowing policy in place, and staff were aware of this and the procedures they needed to follow to raise concerns.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff told us they felt their individuality was respected and encouraged within the service. Staff spoke positively about working within the team and told us they felt valued. This helped create a culture where staff felt able to contribute and be themselves. Staff member said, “Tender- Care support the staff, and provide help and guidance whenever needed.” Another staff member said, “At Tender Care Services, we believe everyone deserves to feel valued, respected, and cared for. Our team is dedicated to making a real difference, knowing that care goes beyond daily tasks it’s about trust, compassion, and being there when it matters most.”

The service 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. We found that the oversight of the service was not robust.There were no formal audits or monitoring systems in place to assess the quality and safety of the provider. The provider had failed to identify significant shortfalls. For example, in relation to medicines, staff training, mental capacity assessments and risk assessments. The provider's audit processes were not sufficiently robust or effective to identify and address concerns within the service. This meant the provider could not always be sure that people were receiving safe and appropriate care.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. The service shared information and worked with a wide range of professionals and services to support people in their own homes. The registered manager told us, “There is support from external agencies, such as social and mental health teams.” Records confirmed the provider worked in partnership with other professionals when needed to support a person’s health and wellbeing. People were supported to maintain links with their community, where appropriate, which demonstrated the service promoted independence and community engagement.

The service 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 provider could not always be assured that learning and improvement were consistently embedded within the service. Whilst systems such as care plan audits and monitoring processes were in place, these had not always been effective in identifying the gaps we found relating to the people’s care. This meant opportunities for learning and improvement were not always recognised or acted upon. We found the provider’s systems and processes had not been maintained to reflect legislation or best practice guidance. The provider needed to consider how to strengthen their governance processes to enable learning, improvement and innovation, including the introduction of an effective service improvement plan. We shared our feedback in relation to our findings during the assessment. The registered manager was receptive to feedback and told us throughout the inspection about plans they had to make improvements.