Community Clinical Care Limited

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 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.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture that supported the delivery of safe, person-centred care to children with complex needs. Policies and procedures reflected best practice and staff had opportunities to discuss care, equality and regulatory requirements through supervision and management meetings. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the service’s values, culture and expectations and told us they felt equally treated.

This culture was reflected in how care was delivered. Care plans included detailed information about children’s communication, cultural and individual needs. Records showed that equality, inclusion and the needs of people and communities were considered within governance processes. Families were regularly asked for their views and could contact the service at any time, which promoted openness and engagement.

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, openness and honesty.

The provider had capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders who were visible and accessible to staff and families. The registered manager was supported by a team of experienced senior staff who were actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service. Leaders had appropriate qualifications and experience for their roles.

Staff spoke positively about management. Staff described leaders as supportive and approachable, with one stating, “I think the management is very supportive. They provide resources, training and guidance needed to help me do my job effectively. I appreciate that they listen to staff concerns.” Another said, “The managers are approachable and very supportive and offer opportunities for training and development.”

Family feedback also highlighted that leaders were approachable and responsive when concerns were raised

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

The provider promoted a culture where staff and people felt able to speak up. Systems included annual staff surveys, which could be completed anonymously, and regular feedback opportunities for families through surveys, meetings and ongoing contact.

Feedback from families showed they generally felt comfortable raising concerns and that these were acted upon. For example, one parent said, “I did have concerns. I let them know and they took action and made required changes.” Another said, “We have questionnaires and meetings, and I can bring anything up. I feel I can ring at any point.”

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.

The provider supported an inclusive workforce and promoted equality, diversity and inclusion. Policies and procedures were in place and staff had received training. The workforce included staff from a range of backgrounds and cultures, and flexible working arrangements were considered where possible, for example, shift patterns arranged around staff study.

Risk assessments supported staff safety, including lone working and pregnancy assessments. Feedback was sought through surveys and supervision. Small team meetings were held for the staff working on individual care packages. The registered manager told us she was planning to hold meetings for the full staff team.

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.

The provider had governance systems in place to monitor quality and safety. Processes included regular reviews of care plans and risk assessments, audits of care records and medicines charts and other records including staff timekeeping and performance. Although we found gaps in one child’s medicines record, the reasons for this were known to senior staff who had identified it as part of their quality monitoring. Prompt action was taken to address the likelihood of future gaps, including revised documentation and guidance for staff.

Spot checks of safe care practice in children’s homes had been carried out, and families had been asked for regular feedback about the care their children received. The registered manager and clinical lead demonstrated that feedback was sought more frequently where care took place overnight since night spot checks could prove disruptive to children and families rest.

A business contingency plan and data protection systems were also in place. Regular weekly management meetings took place where care and quality concerns were discussed along with any actions required for 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.

The provider worked effectively in partnership with external professionals and organisations to support joined-up care. There was regular engagement with commissioners and multidisciplinary teams, and professional guidance was incorporated into care plans.

Professionals described the service as collaborative and responsive. Families also described good communication and coordinated support, reflecting strong partnership working.

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 a culture of learning and continuous improvement. Systems were in place to record incidents and complaints and take prompt action. Learning from concerns had led to service improvements, such as the introduction of the night controller system following reports of staff sleeping on shifts. Following the introduction of the system, there had been no incidents of complaints about staff sleeping during night shifts.

The registered manager told us the recently introduced bespoke electronic monitoring system was developed following their research into ‘off the shelf’ monitoring packages which did not meet the needs of the service. They said the system would be developed further as new recording and reporting needs were identified.