Kaedi Recruitment Agency 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 inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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. 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.

Managers promoted openness with people using the service, including explaining decisions such as changes to staffing levels, increased monitoring, or involvement of external professionals. This helped maintain trust during periods of heightened risk and instability. Where concerns were raised by people, these did not undermine the wider culture, as people still felt care was safe and reliable. Staff worked in a way that aligned with the organisation’s values of safety, quality and empathy. Staff were positive about the culture and leadership within the service. They felt valued and listened to and were encouraged in their development.

The provider had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. They had the knowledge and experience to lead effectively with integrity, openness and honesty.

People and relatives described the management team as approachable, supportive and responsive. People felt the registered manager and deputy manager maintained appropriate communication and addressed concerns. However, some people felt they could show more compassion and understanding at times. A person said, “I feel they don’t always consider my feelings compared to others in the house. But most of the time things are OK but it is something they could do better, along with better communication. It feels like they brush it off and ignore me.” The registered manager acknowledged people’s feedback in this area and assured us they did their best to always maintain a fair and reasoned approach. Records showed people’s issues and concerns were acknowledged and they were being addressed.

The management team could demonstrate compassion and professionalism, particularly when supporting people experiencing significant distress. Staff spoke positively about management support and described feeling listened to and guided when managing challenging situations. The management team recognised the emotional impact of the work and provided support to staff to help with their resilience and confidence. A staff member said, “The managers are very nice. Kind, calm and approachable.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider encouraged openness, transparency and a safe environment for staff and people to raise concerns. They promoted a culture for staff to feel confident speaking up. Staff confirmed they could escalate safeguarding, quality or practice issues through established processes, and they felt listened to.

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 felt they were treated fairly and felt included by the registered manager. They told us they also worked well with the wider team. They completed training in equality and diversity and had an understanding of what it meant. Recruitment and disciplinary processes were in place and ensured there was no disadvantage based on staff's specific protected equality characteristics. The provider had processes to ensure an inclusive workplace where staff were treated and supported as individuals.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There was regular oversight of the service through checks, monthly supervision, audits and ongoing communication with people and relatives. People and families consistently said the management team checked in regularly, reviewed care plans and ensured their needs were being met. There was an out of hours procedure and members of the management team were available on call 24 hours a day.

The registered manager, was supported by the deputy manager and a team leader who helped monitor the supported living service. Staff were encouraged to develop and make improvements in their work where necessary. The registered manager monitored risk, reviewed incidents and adapted care when needs changed. Audits of medicine records, care logs and training were carried out by the registered manager or deputy manager to check that staff were completing them accurately.

Risks were identified, reviewed and escalated appropriately. Managers worked closely with safeguarding teams, mental health services and emergency services. Action plans were implemented and reviewed, and managers were able to demonstrate learning from incidents.The registered manager monitored staffing levels, recruitment, training compliance and continuity of the service. They also kept in contact with the housing management group around the maintenance of the property.

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.

Staff reported working well with external professionals such as care coordinators, hospitals and social workers. People receiving care benefited from these collaborative approaches. The service received positive feedback from partners about the care people received. The provider took a proactive approach to communication, regularly sharing updates and participating in multi‑disciplinary meetings. This ensured risks were understood and managed collectively and reduced the likelihood of people falling through gaps in services. The service also supported people to access community activities, volunteering, employment, education and health appointments, promoting inclusion and independence where safe to do so.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider demonstrated a positive approach to learning and improvement. Staff received regular supervision and refresher training. Feedback showed the provider addressed performance issues promptly and used feedback from people and relatives to review practice. Examples included reviewing observation levels of people in agreement with them and professionals, reinforcing staff guidance on boundaries and confidentiality. The provider arranged refresher training where gaps were identified. The management team showed they were willing to adapt approaches in response to emerging risks and changing needs. Staff described a culture of reflection and improvement, where they were encouraged to learn from experience and seek advice when needed.