Vista Home Care Services 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant the provider was working hard to implement and drive improvements for how the service was managed. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 68 (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, strategy 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.

The provider championed inclusivity and spoke passionately about their commitment to delivering person-centred care and ensuring people were consistently treated with dignity, respect and kindness. The provider had recently updated their statement of purpose which reflected these values.

Staff spoke positively about working for the provider and reflected the provider’s vision and values.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with inclusivity, openness and fairness.

The registered manager was also the provider. They were committed to their own development and actively sought opportunities to improve their skills and knowledge. They provided examples where they had sought advice from health and social care professionals to enhance their learning and improve the quality and safety of care.

The registered manager valued their staff and placed importance on ensuring they were fully supported in their role. People told us the registered manager was approachable and those who had raised concerns with them felt they listened and acted to put things right. One person told us, “They give excellent care and go over and beyond, especially the manager. It’s not just a job for [them] they care and are professional but give the personal touch as well.” A relative told us the registered manager was, “Approachable and [I] would feel comfortable raising any concerns with them. [They have] worked well with me to resolve any problems.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people could speak up.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff were aware of how they could raise concerns both inside and outside of the organisation. Staff told us they felt confident to speak up and felt they would be supported to do so. Supervisions and staff meetings were completed routinely to capture feedback or concerns from staff.The registered manager told us they had plans to resume staff feedback questionnaires so they could fully understand if any improvements were needed.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. Staff were treated fairly and equitably in work and during the application and selection process.

A diverse workforce was employed and policies and systems supported this. Staff told us the registered manager encouraged an inclusive working environment where they were treated fairly and equitably. Staff gave examples where reasonable adjustments had been made to accommodate their individual needs. The provider had been awarded the ‘disability confident committed employer certificate’, which recognised their commitment to improving how they recruited, retained and developed people with a disability.

The provider’s governance systems had been enhanced since our last assessment. Some governance arrangements needed further improvement to ensure they continuously enhanced the quality of care. The provider had clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support.

A system of audits and checks has been implemented and digital care planning systems introduced. These systems provided improved oversight of the quality and safety of care provided. We saw examples of these processes driving improvements such as through spot checks of staff practices and the registered manager’s review of accidents. Further improvements were required to some audit processes. For example, audits of care plans and medicines had not identified and addressed some of the shortfalls we identified. Where audits were delegated to other staff, the registered manager did not operate their own systems to assure the quality of checks completed.

Overall people told us the service was well managed. However, people told us communication could be improved, and they could not always get hold of the registered manager when they needed to. A more proactive approach to seeking feedback from people using the service was required to ensure everyone who used the service had a voice.

The registered manager was committed to learning and improvement. They were receptive to feedback. During our assessment they provided assurance they would take action to further improve their quality assurance systems.

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.

The registered manager encouraged partnership working as they recognised this ensured people received good outcomes. They engaged and collaborated with health and social care professionals and used this advice and guidance to improve the safety and quality of care people received.

The service had undergone a lot of operational changes and more time was required to ensure these changes and the associated improvements became fully embedded.

The provider had an improvement plan, but this was limited and did not evidence innovative improvement strategies. The provider did not always include people using the service and their staff in developing improvements. This was something they were looking to enhance now the operational changes were complete.

Technology had been used to improve the quality of record keeping, rota planning and quality assurance systems. However, the provider had not fully considered the impact of this on people using the service. Further enhancements were required to the technology to ensure it fully met the service’s requirements. For example, falls risk assessments were not automatically generated by the electronic care planning system and were therefore not in place for some people. The registered manager was working with their technology provider to address these issues.

The registered manager was responsive to all of the inspection findings and took prompt action to review the shortfalls and implement ways to improve the quality and performance of the service. This included changes to the electronic risk assessment processes, and improvements to the audits already in place.