CareTech Community Services Limited - 82 Chaucer Road

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 inspection we rated this Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 legal regulation in relation governance at the service at this inspection. Governance measures and audits were not effective in identifying where improvements to the service could be made. The provider was not always promoting a positive culture as they were not dealing with known environmental issues at the service, showing a lack of respect for people’s home. Learning and improvement at the service was not always happening, and some issues at this inspection were present at our last inspection. However, the registered manager was compassionate and worked well with the staff team. Staff felt well supported in their job roles. The registered manager started implementing improvements based on our feedback at this inspection.

This service scored 57 (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 always understand the challenges and the needs of people using the service. The provider did not action known issues within the environment of the service as detailed in the ‘Safe environments’ quality statement. People were not consistently being supported to follow their known interests and past times or try new experiences. However, the registered manager and staff team were passionate about supporting people. They treated people with kindness and compassion and people were clearly happy being supported by the staff team. The registered manager sent us evidence of some of the things people had been supported to achieve by the staff team. This included independently accessing the community or seeing family members. One person said, ‘‘It is great here. I love it.’’ A relative said, ‘‘[Staff] are very supportive, and I do not think [family member] even sees themselves as separate from the staff. This is a credit to them.’’

Some aspects of the governance at the service were not effective. The registered manager was not always making sure people’s care plans and risk assessments were kept up to date with their current support needs if these changed. The registered manager took actions based on our findings at this inspection and was grateful for our feedback. However, the governance measures they had in place at the service had not identified these issues and we could not be assured actions would have been taken without our feedback.

However, people and the staff team spoke positively about how compassionate and kind the registered manager was. They also told us the registered manager was very much part of the staff team and spent time including people and the staff team in discussions and decision making. The registered manager told us they felt well supported by senior leaders. People knew who the registered manager was. One person said, ‘‘[Name] is the registered manager. I really like them.’’ The registered manager had started to build good relationships with people’s relatives. One relative told us, ‘‘[Registered manager] seems really good. They have their own style and I can see how this will be positive at the service.’’

The registered manager and staff team fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People and relative knew how to raise concerns and speak up. The registered manager had processes in place to review any complaints and respond to the complainant with any actions needed as a result of the complaint. Staff also told us they felt safe speaking up and raising concerns and were given a lot of opportunities to do so both formally and informally. One person said, ‘‘If something was wrong then I go to [staff].’’ A relative said, ‘‘Any concerns we have are dealt with quickly. No problems there.’’

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 enjoyed working at the service and felt well supported by the registered manager. The providers recruitment process was fair and equitable.

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 registered manager and senior managers completed audits to monitor the quality of the service. Some of these audits were detailed and had actions to be completed as a result. However, for other audits it was not clear what their purpose was or whether identified actions were being completed. Issues we identified at this inspection had not been identified through the governance measures in place at the service. For example, care plans and risk assessments not being personalised or updated regularly and IPC issues. The provider was not acting on known maintenance and environmental issues at the service. The registered manager and senior management team started to take actions following our inspection. However, we could not be assured this would have happened were it not for our inspection.

The registered manager and staff team 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 and staff team had good working relationships with partners such as health professionals and local day opportunities. They worked well with these partners to help people achieve good outcomes. For example, one person was being supported to try a new day opportunity and staff did this in a careful measured way. This resulted in positive experience for the person. One relative said, ‘‘[Family member] is very much part of the community and staff know how important this is to them.’’

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. Some of the issues at this inspection relating to care plans not being up to date and environmental issues were also present at our last inspection. This showed a lack of learning and improvement. The provider was not improving the environment when known maintenance issues were impacting the safety of the environment. Audits did not always effectively identify where improvement could be made and had not identified the issues we found at this inspection. This made it harder for lessons to be learned and improvement to be put in place.

However, the registered manager and staff team were keen to learn and continually improve people’s experiences when living at the service. They wanted what was best for people and put people first. This was evident from the way people presented when they were being supported and from the positive feedback from people and their relatives. One person said, ‘‘I love living here. I’ll stay here forever.’’ A relative said, ‘‘I cannot think of a better place for [family member] to be and cannot thank the staff team enough.’’