Candlelight 747 Healthcare Ltd

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 processes did not always support he 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 provider had a shared vision and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
Staff and people felt there was a positive culture at the service. Communication channels between people, staff and management were open and effective.

Leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. However, leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. The registered manager/nominated individual was not aware of some aspects of governance that were required meaning some issues had not been identified or acted on. Staff said the registered manager was a supportive leader.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. All staff shared they felt able speak up when needed although it had not been necessary.

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.
We asked staff whether they had ever experienced discrimination and no one raised concerns with us.
 

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. Audits for medicines and care planning were in place and had been carried out, but they were not fit for purpose. Audits did not cover some of the most important aspects of the area being scrutinised such as when required medicines. None of the audits identified the issues we found during the inspection.

The registered manager shared plans to make improvements to the governance systems based on our feedback.

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.
We received positive comments about how the staff worked with other care services when supporting people in tandem.
 

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. This was partly due to the provider being unable to identify some of the issues requiring improvement themselves. The registered manager confirmed they were intending to put an action plan in place with a view to learning from the inspection and to make improvements.