Caring Partners 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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 regulation in relation to governance of the service as their quality monitoring of the service was not effective. The provider was in breach of this legal regulation at our last inspection; not enough improvements were found at this assessment.

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, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion and engagement.

The registered manager told us the values of the organisation were shared with staff during induction, at staff meetings and during supervisions. The registered manager said, “We are person-centred and recognise that everyone is different. We make sure staff understand our standards by doing spot checks regularly and auditing care notes.”

Staff were aware of the values and understood the aims of the service. One member of staff said, “The provider gives us opportunities to enhance our skills and knowledge. They are caring to the service users, and I feel valued and respected. They celebrate the individuals and team achievements and give us opportunity to speak up. They want us to provide person-centred care for the service users, and we do try and do our best to do that.”

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. They were aware of the standards of care expected and told us management regularly visited people’s homes to carry out checks on how they were working. Comments from the staff included, “I love it, most of the clients know me and I am used to them” and “I love helping people. Every day is different and you find out something new all the time.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience to understand and implement an effective risk management system to make sure people were provided with safe support.

At the last inspection, the service was rated requires improvement and breaches of regulations were found. At this inspection improvements had been made so the service was now in breach of 1 regulation. There was no service improvement plan to help the provider make all of the required improvement or monitor any actions to ensure they were completed. This meant leaders were not able to demonstrate the areas of development for the service and what actions were needed to be compliant with all regulations.

Management were not able to demonstrate they were aware of best practice guidance for areas such as recruitment, medicines management and risk mitigation. For example, management did not know they had to assess competence for staff to safely administer medicines. However, the registered manager was aware staff should always be following peoples agreed plans of care.

Feedback about the management from people and staff was positive. The registered manager was described as approachable and available when needed. Staff felt able to approach management with any issues or concerns. Comments from the staff included, “The service is well-led, we also have senior carers who are helpful, they are all approachable” and “I think it is well-led, I am happy working for the organisation and I would recommend it to other staff to work.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had whistleblowing policies and procedures which staff had access to. Staff we spoke with understood the whistleblowing process. Staff shared examples of where they would go if they needed to report any concerns outside of the service. Staff told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the management and they were confident action would be taken.

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.

Staff were provided with training on equality, diversity and inclusion as part of their induction. Staff told us they felt welcomed at the service and there were equal opportunities for all. For example, staff said they were all offered help and opportunity to complete work-based qualifications.

The registered manager told us they outsourced their HR systems to an external provider. This enabled them to support staff in ways that met legislation and good practice guidance.

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.

Governance systems had not been effective in driving improvement at the service. At our last inspection we found a breach of regulation with regards to good governance. The provider submitted an action plan to tell us what actions they would take and by when to be compliant. At this inspection, whilst some improvements had been made, there was further improvement needed to make sure governance was effective. We found the provider had failed to identify any of the shortfalls we found through their own quality monitoring systems.

The provider was reviewing care notes weekly. However, these checks were not identifying people’s care and risk management plans needed updating. The provider was carrying out a weekly review of medicines records, but again these checks were not identifying people’s medicines support plans needed updating. Whilst people were being supported by staff they knew, not having accurate care plans meant the provider could not be assured staff had the correct guidance needed to support people safely.

The registered manager told us they regularly phoned people or visited people in their homes. People told us communication with the office was very good. However, none of this quality assurance work had been recorded. Management reviews of incidents and accidents was not consistent and did not record all actions taken to prevent recurrence. In response to a review of some risks, care plans had not been updated. This meant the provider could not be assured staff had all the information needed to support people safely.

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 service worked with a variety of healthcare professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. We found evidence in records that staff liaised with professionals such as the occupational therapist to try and improve outcomes for people.

The provider worked with the local authority and were receptive to listening and responding to feedback. One professional shared positive feedback about working in partnership with the service. They told us, “They were flexible in their approach and worked hard to build a relationship of trust in the first instance. They overcame many challenges, but working with other professionals enabled them to better assist the customer to ensure all daily needs, health needs and overall wellbeing needs were met with great admirability.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The provider had systems for learning within the organisation, we found these were not always effective and had been implemented inconsistently. For example, learning from incidents was not always recorded, learning identified through spot checks was not completed and feedback from people had not been recorded.

The registered manager told us they were part of registered manager forums and learned from discussions with peers and learning events. However, they were not able to provide or demonstrate any examples of learning and innovation.