Indiana Health Care Services

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 service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 71 (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.

Leaders respected peoples' equal rights and knew about workforce inequalities. The management team and the staff shared the values of the provider and were working to provide good quality care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, and openness.

The management team of the service had been expanded to support the provider’s ability to oversee the service effectively. This had improved the experience for the people using the service. The management team was meeting the needs of both people and the staff.

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

Staff fed back how they felt able to address issues they might have with the management team. There were opportunities to raise any issues in team meetings, and individual supervision meetings held between a staff member and their line manager.

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 told us they worked well as a team, and they did what they could to help each other. Staff members told us how leaders supported their personal life in the UK having come from other countries to work in social care.

We saw evidence that sponsored staff from abroad were well supported by the service in the administration of the service’s sponsorship license.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to monitoring visits. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

The service’s management team had been expanded and improved to better meet the needs of a larger homecare provider. People and relatives were positive about the quality of the response from the office to meeting their needs for changes. However, we also heard from staff that occasionally some people had received a less responsive service from the office staff. The provider was hopeful the service’s new IT system should assist further in this area of service improvement.

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.

People were frequently discharged from the local hospital to the service. The relationship between health services taking part in this discharge process was generally working well.

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 had an active 6 monthly system of surveying people, relatives and staff to give feedback on the service. They also attempted to gain professionals views every 6 months. Responses were collated quickly at each survey point and the information received was acted upon.