CFT Care 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to good governance.
 

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 had not embedded a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which placed people’s experience of care at the centre of the service.
Observations, documentation and feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals evidenced significant concerns with communication and the consistency of people’s support. There was not always a positive, person-centred culture across all services.

Whilst the provider had started to introduce processes for improving communication and involvement, these were not fully implemented at the time of the inspection and we identified ongoing concerns with how well the provider involved people and those important to them to promote better outcomes for people.
 

The provider had not always ensured leaders at all levels were visible and approachable. People, relatives and health professionals did not always know who to contact and we received mixed feedback about how well leaders responded to concerns.

The provider had not always ensured there was effective communication across management and staffing teams. People’s relatives were not always able to contact senior managers and this meant they were not always sure whether information of concern had been escalated. Health professionals told us it was not always clear who they should contact and said this led to inconsistencies in information sharing and feedback.

At the time of the inspection, the manager was new to the role and had not yet registered with CQC. The provider had recently implemented a new management structure with defined roles and responsibilities. They told us the senior management team were in the process of organising events with people and those involved in their care to ensure everyone was introduced to the management team and people knew who to contact.
 

Staff were able to access guidance and information about whistleblowing and speaking up. Staff told us they were aware these policies were in place and knew how to use them if required. However, staff did not always feel their voices were heard. Staff feedback evidenced concerns with communication. Staff did not always feel well supported and listened to.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for staff who worked for them. The provider had relevant policies and procedures in place to promote equity in their recruitment and development opportunities. Staff recruited through overseas sponsorship were supported by an internal team focused on their recruitment and ongoing support once employed. They were supported to access essential services, including GP surgeries, schools, Citizens Advice, and other wellbeing resources where appropriate.

The provider did not have clear systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always promptly address concerns about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider’s governance processes were not effective. During the inspection, we identified concerns with the oversight of key areas of people’s care and support including staff training, risk management, safeguarding, capacity and consent and dignified, person-centred care.

Whilst an action plan was in place which identified areas where improvements were required, not all concerns found during the inspection were included. The action plan did not always demonstrate how progress was being made. For example, some actions did not include updates and this meant it was not clear how the provider was continuously monitoring and prioritising actions to improve people’s experience of care.

The provider’s model of care did not always promote person-centred care or demonstrate how people were being encouraged to live as independently as possible in accommodation that was genuinely their own. It was not clear how the provider supported people to understand their choices in relation to their supported living accommodation and the care they received.
 

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.

We received mixed feedback from health professionals about how well the provider implemented people’s planned care and how well they worked in partnership with them to promote better outcomes for people. Whilst some health professionals told us they were in regular contact with the provider, others raised concerns around inconsistent communication and poor oversight and a failure to robustly implement health professional’s recommendations.
 

The provider told us they were committed to continuously improving the service and senior leaders met regularly to discuss areas of learning and development across the organisation.

However, the provider’s approach to driving improvement was inconsistent. Whilst oversight and improvement plans were in place with evidence of some positive changes made, it was not always clear how shortfalls linked to the quality and safety of people’s care were being prioritised to ensure timely improvements were made.

The provider did not always demonstrate how they encouraged creative ways of delivering good experiences and outcomes for people. Leaders were not able to evidence how they worked with people, relatives and staff to build a culture focused on enabling people to enjoy a full life.