Rebound Healthcare 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 inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance, statement of purpose, notice of absence and notice of change.

This service scored 32 (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 did not have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Whilst the provider had a statement of purpose with a defined service vision, ‘To be recognised as a trusted provider of outstanding domiciliary care services, enabling individuals to live independently, safely, and with dignity within their own homes.’ The provider did not demonstrate how their service was meeting this vision.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The staff structure document was not accurate and provided a different nominated individual to that recorded with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The nominated individual is responsible for regulatory oversight and compliance. This individual is formally notified to CQC. During the assessment, there was no engagement from the individual designated in the staff structure document as responsible for representing the provider and overseeing compliance with CQC regulations and fundamental standards. Care plan documentation directed staff to report concerns to the registered manager or designated senior member of staff. However, this was not possible as the service had not had a manager registered with CQC as required since 2024. There was no manager in post at the time of the assessment.

People did not feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. The provider did not demonstrate they had effective systems to enable people and staff to speak up. The provider was not operating from their registered location, and the registered and advertised telephone number did not work. Therefore, people and staff could only contact the service electronically.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Whilst the provider had an equality, diversity and inclusion policy, they did not demonstrate this policy was effective in practice.

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

The provider was not operating from their registered location. The required site visit could not be completed because the provider did not facilitate access to enable the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to complete its regulatory functions. The service had not had a manager registered with CQC since 2024. The provider had not informed CQC about changes in the service as required. Including a change of nominated individual, the service not delivering a regulated activity for a period of time and a notice of absence of a registered person. There was no one managing the service in their absence. The provider had not ensured their statement of purpose or service user guide was accurate and up to date. The provider’s website contained misleading information and different location details to those held by CQC. The provider’s website was no longer active.

The provider did not demonstrate they had the required insurance in place or the systems and processes described in their service user guide and statement of purpose, such as quality assurance systems, were implemented and functioning effectively.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The provider did not have any partnerships with the local authority where they were registered or with the local authority in which their statement of purpose said they operated.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.