Stocks Home 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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. People using the service and their relatives consistently described a culture where staff were caring, responsive and committed to supporting people to remain safe and comfortable in their own homes. Feedback showed staff understood people’s individual preferences and adapted their approach accordingly. One family member said, “They listen and adapt. The illnesses are similar but the people are individuals.” Leaders supported this culture through oversight systems, including call monitoring, audits and spot checks, which helped promote consistency and reinforce expected standards of 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, openness and honesty. Leaders were approachable, responsive and demonstrated compassion, which helped people, relatives and staff to feel supported and confident in the service. People and relatives described managers and office staff as easy to contact and willing to respond flexibly when care needs changed. One family member said, “Very approachable. I have contacted them a couple of times.” Staff feedback gathered during the inspection reflected positive leadership, with staff describing regular supervision, competency checks and access to relevant training. Leaders supported staff development and addressed improvements collaboratively, contributing to a stable and supportive working environment.

The provider promoted an open culture where people, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to and acted upon. For example, people described how issues, such as compatibility with carers or concerns about call times, were addressed when raised.

The provider promoted equality, diversity and inclusion and respected people’s individual preferences. Staff were supported through training, supervision and competency checks, which helped ensure fair treatment and consistent expectations across the workforce. Leaders celebrated successes and supported staff development, contributing to a positive and inclusive working culture.

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. Leaders carried out audits, monitoring and spot checks to ensure care was delivered in line with the provider’s expectations. Call monitoring systems were used to track arrival times and ensure visits were completed for the full allocated duration. Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were appropriately reported, with lessons learned analysed and shared with staff. Care plans were updated following incidents to reduce the risk of recurrence, demonstrating a proactive approach to quality assurance.

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. Professionals provided positive feedback about their working relationships with the service, highlighting good communication and collaborative working to achieve positive outcomes for people.

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. Leaders reviewed incidents and shared learning with staff through meetings and supervision. Where improvements were identified, such as strengthening risk assessments, the service responded promptly and updated documentation accordingly. People and relatives described how care plans were reviewed when needs changed and how staff adapted their practice to reflect learning and individual preferences, showing improvement was embedded into day‑to‑day practice.