Vogue Future Living 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

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 changed to inadequate.

This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance, safe care and treatment, consent, safeguarding people from harm and abuse, safe staffing and recruitment of fit and proper persons for the role.

This service scored 36 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

We found there was a closed culture. We were not assured that the culture leaders promoted was open and honest. There was not a clear direction of the organisation that embodied the values associated with a service of this nature, and the provider did not encourage or uphold people’s human rights or value inclusion.

There was disparity between the definition of the type of service being provided, between the leaders and the managers, which could hinder a shared direction for the provider. Leaders believed they were providing a home care service, and managers, a supported living service. Prior to, and during our assessment, it was confirmed to the provider that it is a supported living service. The provider was registered for the incorrect service with the CQC and despite being made aware of this, had not taken any steps to make the necessary changes to their registration.

The provider did not foster a culture that promoted person-centred care, and care provided was often not unique to the person receiving it. There was no drive towards service improvement and some staff felt they would be reprimanded if they raised concerns as leaders were reluctant to listen to criticism, whether constructive or otherwise.

We were not assured that leaders would listen to and embed feedback or the providers vision into operational delivery.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Concerns were raised to us prior to and during our assessment, about the leaders and managers of the organisation. We found that leaders did not have much, or any, experience within the care sector. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Managers within the organisation had relevant experience and qualifications for their roles, however we were not assured they had the skills or competency to do this to a good standard.

Neither the leaders nor managers had an awareness of recognised best practice for the service they were providing. They did not have an awareness of Right support, right care, right culture; The REACH standards or Real Tenancy test which meant that they were not assessing the quality of the service against best practice.

We were not assured during our assessment that leaders and managers were open and transparent with us. For example, when the assessment began, we asked how many people were receiving the regulated activity, personal care. We were told 6, however during our assessment we found there were more than this, and in total there were 13.

People’s care plans detailed how staff should support them to complete their personal care tasks. These plans were written by managers, therefore there was no reasonable explanation for incorrect information being shared with us during our assessment.

By the end of our assessment, the provider had taken on an additional manager, who had recently been involved with improving the quality of a different service.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

There was mixed feedback from staff in relation to this. Some felt that that when they raised concerns, they were listened to and taken seriously. Others felt reprimanded for speaking up and raising concerns, which meant they did not feel comfortable approaching managers or leaders in the future with concerns. One person told us “We cannot whistle blow as we are scared we will lose our jobs”.

We found the provider was not actively promoting staff’s freedom to speak up. There was not always information within services for staff on how to speak up, and the provider’s whistleblowing policy did not contain information for staff on who they could go to externally, to raise concerns. There was no system in place for staff to raise concerns anonymously.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Some staff felt that there was a culture of bullying and favouritism, and not everyone was treated fairly. Others felt positively about the culture within the organisation.

Staff acknowledged that supervisions were regular, however they did not always feel supervisions were meaningful or productive. Some staff felt very supported.

There is an employee of the month scheme. Staff and managers told us that the person to receive the award is chosen by the managers. Managers explained this may be following a compliment from a person, relative or external professional, or because of their own observations. Some staff felt the award tended to be given to staff the managers favoured and there was not always a clear explanation of why the person had received the award.

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.

During our assessment, we found that the provider had no oversight of services. They did not complete regular audits. Managers did not complete any audits of the services which meant they had no oversight that any systems were running effectively, or services were running safely.

We were not assured some of the providers policies had been written for the service they were providing, as they contained phrases that were not relevant, such as “medicines will not be left in the centre overnight”.

The provider was not always following their own policies. For example, in their policy relating to the use of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV), it stated “If a service user lacks capacity to consent, a Mental Capacity Assessment will be carried out, and a Best Interest Decision will be made in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005)”. We found that some people had been assumed to lack capacity to consent to the use of CCTV, and their families had signed consent forms on their behalf.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

There was no evidence of joined up working. The provider was not submitting referrals to other agencies such as Speech and Language Therapy, or utilising information from historical input from professionals, to meet people’s health needs.

The leaders and managers were not part of any local forums, groups or schemes to share ideas, or strive towards continuous improvement.

The provider did operate “parents’ evenings” where relatives of people using the service could attend and share ideas, ask questions and raise concerns. Items raised were not always actioned by the provider.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

There was no quality assurance, service improvement, or lessons learnt action plans in place. The provider did not have oversight of the services and therefore was unable to identify areas for improvement and implement actions.

During our assessment, feedback was given on individual concerns or issues we identified, however we were not assured that learning from this would be applied across the service. Managers were quick to take action to rectify individual issues or concerns, but we saw no evidence that this would them be embedded into practice, ensuring improvement would be experienced for all using the service.