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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained 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, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.
 

This service scored 32 (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.

The provider did not share information with relevant external stakeholders, and there was a closed culture within the organisation.
Staff were not consistently aware of the service’s values or expectations, and there was limited evidence that leaders promoted person centred, compassionate care through their actions.

People using the service did not consistently experience support that reflected respect, empowerment, or open communication. Poor oversight meant concerns were not always recognised, escalated, or addressed in a timely manner. This resulted in a culture that was task led, with insufficient learning from incidents or feedback.
 

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. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

We were not assured that managers and leaders at the provider, were capable and competent in their roles. We found that some members of the management team did not have vital knowledge about people using the service, and they were not aware of the CQC’s role and purpose. One manager told us that they had not been sent the report from the previous CQC assessment and was not aware reports are published on our website.

We found that managers and leaders did not prioritise feedback from our last assessment based on risk and impact to people. For example, managers had created lots of new audits and documentation, some had been embedded, and some was still a work in progress. However, there were concerns raised at our previous assessment that directly impacted people and put them at risk, which had not been addressed.

Feedback in relation to managers and leaders mixed, many staff and relatives told us that they were unapproachable and there was a culture of favouritism. However, one relative told us, “The management team are first class, and I feel comfortable telling them if there is something I’m not happy about.”
 

People did not feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. We found that staff had good knowledge of Freedom to Speak Up and often utilised it and raised concerns directly with us or other external organisations, such as, local authorities.

During our assessment, we reached out to staff for feedback, and found some staff felt comfortable to raise concerns internally to their managers, but most staff did not feel able to do this.

We found that many staff were frightened of repercussions if they raised concerns, and many did not want to share their concerns with us in person or over the phone and chose to do this anonymously via our website.
One staff member told us, “I am scared to raise this concern as I have personally seen the repercussions staff have had for raising concerns before,” and “I am worried for my job.”
 

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.

We found there was not always a fair process taken by the provider, when it came to promoting staff. We were told during discussions with managers, that they had chosen someone to be a new deputy manager. When asked about recruitment processes for this position, we were told that they were not going to advertise this job as they had already decided who they wanted to be in that role.

We received anonymous concerns from staff, about the language used to describe staff. One staff member told us that deputy managers used derogatory and racist terms to describe new staff members.
 

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.

We found there was not adequate oversight of the service. Audits had been implemented but they were not completed to a good standard and often things were missed or not escalated.

We found that there were aspects of the service, where there were no governance systems or processes in place to provide oversight. For example, General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). We found during our assessment multiple concerns in relation to GDPR, including relatives personal phone numbers displayed within offices within the services. These offices were not locked meaning anyone who lived or had access to the building, could access this information.

Our assessment found widespread and significant shortfalls across the supported living homes under this registration. We identified regulatory breaches. This meant people had been placed at risk of not receiving planned care and have been exposed to the risk of unnecessary harm due to poor governance.
 

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.

Engagement with health, social care, and community resources was variable, and records did not always demonstrate effective collaboration or timely follow up of actions agreed with external agencies.

Opportunities to promote people’s inclusion within their local communities were not always maximised, and support to access community activities or maintain social relationships lacked consistency. While some people benefited from multi agency involvement, this was not embedded across the service.
 

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.

The provider’s oversight of systems and processes to support learning, improvement and innovation had failed to identify and deliver sustainable improvements. There was no service improvement plan in place, lessons learnt log or anything of similar nature to demonstrate how the service was learning from incidents or mistakes.

The provider had not demonstrated any learning from our previous assessment as we found multiple of the same concerns at this assessment. This meant people continued to be at risk of receiving poor care.