Mace Homecare Service 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. The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led.

Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer rated requires improvement. The provider had taken action to improve the effectiveness of their audits and checks.

This service scored 75 (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. Values of the organisation were embedded into the culture of the service, through team meetings, staff supervisions and observed practice.

Staff had a good knowledge of the values of the service. Staff undertook a range of training and used this to help ensure procedures were followed to provide people with good quality care. There was regular communication between staff so that they could share their experiences and learn from each other.

There was a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff felt comfortable raising concerns with the registered manager, knowing they would listen to them, be fair and proportionate and take appropriate actions to resolve them.

The registered manager operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff. Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up.

There was a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff felt comfortable raising concerns with the registered manager, knowing they would listen to them, be fair and proportionate and take appropriate actions to resolve them.

The registered manager operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff. Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality care and support. They acted on information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this with others when appropriate. Quality assurance processes monitored the running and effectiveness of the service.

Our previous inspection found that audits and checks were not always effective at identifying issues. During this assessment, we looked at audits and checks and found that the service had taken proactive steps to address this issue. Systems were now in place for assessing, monitoring and improving the service. Audits and checks were carried out to check the running and efficiency of the service to help identify deficiencies and make necessary improvements. Audits included MAR checks, spot checks, supervisions and reviewing people’s care records. They responded appropriately when things went wrong, learning from these. There were a range of policies and procedures which reflected good practice guidance and legislation.

Management understood and demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements. They also understood their responsibility to provide honest information, suitable support and to apply duty of candour where appropriate.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality care and support. They acted on information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this with others when appropriate. Quality assurance processes monitored the running and effectiveness of the service.

Our previous inspection found that audits and checks were not always effective at identifying issues. During this assessment, we looked at audits and checks and found that the service had taken proactive steps to address this issue. Systems were now in place for assessing, monitoring and improving the service. Audits and checks were carried out to check the running and efficiency of the service to help identify deficiencies and make necessary improvements. Audits included MAR checks, spot checks, supervisions and reviewing people’s care records. They responded appropriately when things went wrong, learning from these. There were a range of policies and procedures which reflected good practice guidance and legislation.

Management understood and demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements. They also understood their responsibility to provide honest information, suitable support and to apply duty of candour where appropriate.

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 provider focused on continuous learning and improvement. Since the last inspection, the provider had taken proactive steps to address areas identified as requiring improvement. The registered manager was committed to positive changes based on feedback and lessons learnt.

Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify any trends and frequency. Practice was changed to reflect improvements.

Staff were supported to learn and improve in their role, through training, supervision and staff meetings.