Fission Care Ltd

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 newly registered 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 policies and procedures for the service were all framed to encompass and emphasise the expectations people could have about the service. This was understood not only by the provider but the care staff team.

In their feedback, care staff and the manager clearly described values shared by the organisation. They were open in sharing these with people using the service and others whilst demonstrating this in their day-to-day work with people. This was also evident in the feedback that we received from relatives of people using the service. As an example, about day-to-day experience of the service a relative told us “They contact me to tell me what the concern is and will involve me in decisions of how best to support (Relative). Sometimes they must make decisions more quickly and let me know (what they did)”.

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 was knowledgeable about effectively managing the service. They were open and did not hesitate to share, on a need-to-know basis, information about the service performance and events with CQC and others who needed to know. People’s, relative’s and commissioner’s views were sought and surveys were undertaken. Care staff told us that they felt that they were working for a supportive employer and were aware of the values expected by the provider.

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

The provider had a range of policies and mechanisms to enable people, whether using the service, relatives, stakeholders and staff, to share their views. This was enhanced through personal contact, surveys and regular communication with people.

The provider told us they promoted communication and did not put barriers in place to prevent anyone from sharing their opinion about the service, whether positive or negative. The feedback that we received about the service, whether from relatives of people using the service or staff believed they could raise what they wished to with the provider and share their views. There was confidence that people’s views would be taken seriously and acted upon.

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 had policies and procedures in place which meant staff were recruited fairly. They sought a mixture of backgrounds and skills that would meet the needs and enhance the lives of the people they supported.

The feedback that we received from care staff was highly positive and reflected their belief that Fission Care was an inclusive organisation. Their views reflected a belief that they felt valued and supported by the provider to develop their professional skills not only through training but sharing experiences and sharing ideas as a 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.

Overall service performance is monitored through periodic internal audits, quality assurance reviews, and management meetings. During these, key performance indicators, incidents, and feedback are evaluated. The service also seeks input from service users and stakeholders to support continuous improvement.

We were provided with a copy of a quality survey that was carried out in late February and early March 2026. The responses provided were positive and no specific concerns about the quality of the service were raised, on the contrary, the feedback the organisation received was positive.

There were clear lines of accountability and people working for the service demonstrated in their feedback that they knew who to report to, not just in terms of arising concerns, but also the day-to day care provided.

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.

A relative of a person who lives in their own home in the community told us “Staff support (relative) to maintain relationships with family and in the community.” One of the two people being supported received support at night to monitor their safety and Fission care did not have lead responsibility for other aspects of their care.

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.

Feedback we received, the policies and procedures we were shown and care and oversight documents we reviewed demonstrated a culture of continuous learning from events and making improvement.

We were provided with the record of complaints and other incidents, including safeguarding concerns. No one raised any concerns about people being cared for safely. No safeguarding concerns had been reported in the last twelve months, or since the service began to operate. The care staff team, which care staff confirmed, held regular meetings which included discussion on areas of care practice. We saw examples of this in staff team meeting minutes and different topics relating to care were discussed.