Time4Care 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 good.

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 promoted an open and inclusive culture that placed people at the centre of care. The registered manager took a hands-on approach and remained actively involved in supporting people and overseeing the service, which helped maintain a good understanding of people's needs and experiences.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to delivering high-quality care and understood the importance of equality, dignity and person-centred support. Decisions about the service were made with consideration of people's needs and the capacity of the service to continue providing safe and effective care. Staff feedback reflected a positive culture within the service. One staff member told us, "The clients make you want to come to work and make me feel positive at work."

The service was led by a registered manager who was actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service and understood the needs of the people being supported. Staff and people using the service benefited from a visible and accessible leader who maintained regular oversight of care delivery. Staff spoke positively about the support they received. One staff member told us, "The manager has been very supportive of my progression at work. He genuinely cares about your progress and life. I've worked for 10 years in care and he cares in a way that I have not experienced from other bosses."

The registered manager demonstrated the skills, knowledge and experience required to manage the service and was committed to providing person-centred care. Staff told us they felt supported and were able to seek guidance when needed. The registered manager promoted an open and honest culture and encouraged positive relationships within the service.

The provider promoted an open culture where staff, people using the service and their representatives were encouraged to raise concerns, share feedback and discuss any issues. Policies and procedures were in place to support whistleblowing, complaints and raising concerns.

Staff received regular support from the registered manager and had opportunities to discuss concerns through day-to-day communication and supervision. The registered manager maintained an open-door approach and demonstrated an understanding of the importance of listening and responding to concerns.

The provider promoted an inclusive working culture where staff were treated fairly and respectfully. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and demonstrated an understanding of the importance of supporting people and colleagues without discrimination.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and had opportunities to discuss any concerns with the registered manager through supervision and day-to-day communication.

The provider had access to external employment support, including an employee assistance programme which offered advice, guidance and wellbeing support to staff when required.

The provider had governance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including audits, staff supervision, training oversight and care record reviews. The registered manager maintained regular involvement in the service and had a good understanding of the people being supported.

Some quality assurance processes were not always effective in identifying and addressing issues in a timely manner. During the assessment, we found areas requiring improvement which had not been identified through existing monitoring arrangements. These included aspects of medicines recording, care review processes and oversight systems. Although no evidence of harm was identified, these findings indicated that governance arrangements were not consistently robust.

The provider was open to feedback and had already identified actions to strengthen oversight. These included developing more effective auditing arrangements, introducing formal feedback surveys, improving monitoring of care records and reviews, and creating a business continuity plan to support service resilience.

The provider worked with external professionals and agencies to help ensure people received coordinated care and support. Records showed communication with healthcare professionals where required, helping to ensure people's needs were understood and responded to appropriately.

As a small service, partnership working was primarily focused on supporting individual people's needs. We discussed the benefits of developing wider links with local care networks and suggested the registered manager join local forums and registered manager networks, to strengthen partnership working, share learning and access sector updates and best practice.

The provider had plans for the future development of the service and understood the importance of working collaboratively with partners to support positive outcomes for people.

The provider showed a willingness to learn and improve, making use of technology and feedback to support ongoing service development. Technology was used to support service delivery, including electronic care records and assisting with administrative tasks.