Hippo 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 since it was registered. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of 1 legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 61 (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.

Staff consistently demonstrated a clear understanding of the service’s vision and values, which included dignity, respect, safety, and compassion. These values were embedded into daily practice and reinforced during staff inductions and ongoing supervision meetings. One member of staff told us, “I apply these values by ensuring clients are treated with kindness, their choices are respected, and their privacy is protected”. Another member of staff told us, “In my role, I promote these values through practice observations, assessments and communication with clients and carers.”
 

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. However, the registered manager and provider had failed to identify the concerns we found.

Staff were very complimentary regarding the registered manager. Comments from staff included, “Leaders, especially the registered manager, are visible, approachable, and supportive. They lead by example, demonstrating professionalism, respect, and kindness”, “The support from my registered manager, motivates me and reinforces the strong culture within the service” and “My registered manager, leads by example and maintains strong visibility across the service.”
 

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

Staff were aware of the term ‘freedom to speak up’ and told us the service encouraged them to do this if they had any concerns. Staff told us, “To me, it means staff can speak openly about concerns without fear. It encourages transparency and helps maintain safety and quality”, It means having the confidence to raise concerns without fear of negative consequences. It ensures clients are safe and carers feel protected” and “Having this freedom helps create a safer environment for both clients and carers, and it reminds me that speaking up is part of maintaining professional, high-quality care.”
 

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 were fairly treated at work. Comments included, “I have no concerns about unfair treatment. Hippo Care Limited treats staff with respect and equality” and “I have no concerns regarding inequality. Staff are treated fairly and respectfully.”
 

The provider did not have clear systems of accountability and good governance. The quality of record keeping varied and did not always provide clear instructions or met professional standards. We found risk assessments were either not in place or did not routinely and consistently contain enough information to mitigate harm to people.

People’s records were not always representative of the individual. For instance, we found inconsistencies in people’s care plans. Care plans contained contradictions which could have led to harm. For instance, one person’s care plan referred to them being able to “stand independently” and later referred to them needing 2 staff to support them from getting up from bed. Another person’s care plan referred to them being able to be independent with transferring from their bed and in another part of the care plan referred to staff needing to supervise all bed transfers.

We found care plans did not always reflect the current needs of the person. One person’s care schedule had been reduced to 1 visit a day, however, the care timetable still stated they received 4 calls a day.

We found daily records of care provided were inadequate or often were an exact replica of a previous day. For instance, we observed daily notes recorded “When” ,“[name of person] is well, l compiled the tasks”, “Done everything” and “[name of person]”. These notes were not sufficient to identify what support staff had provided to people.

We found medicine records needed to improve. Where people had been prescribed ‘as required’ (PRN) medicine, their records did not routinely have clear information for staff to follow on when and how to administer the medicine. We found medicine administration records (MAR), did not routine follow best practice guidance from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The registered manager told us one person was prescribed PRN paracetamol, however, their MAR stated it was required as a regular dose.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the service, and conducted many audits, however they were not identifying the concerns were found. The audits were all very positive and one audit which monitored staff conduct was pre-populated with a positive answer on the template used. The provider needed to ensure where audits were carried out, they integrated information sufficiently to drive improvements in the service.

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 registered manager told us, “We engage and collaborate with the local community in informal ways, such as liaising with local services and professionals”.

System in place did not always have the desired outcome to drive improvement in the service. We found lessons learnt were cascaded to staff. However, the provider’s quality assurance systems were not used effectively to continuously improve the service. They had not consistently recognised gaps, contradictions in people’s records and had not recognised improvements were needed in daily note recording to ensure they reflected the support people had received.