Caremix 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 64 (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 that was person-centred and focused on delivering high-quality care. Leaders described clear values around relationship-based care and ensuring “every visit has to be precious,” which were embedded through training, meetings and day-to-day practice. Staff feedback supported this culture. One staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is an amazing person and promotes an open culture. It is easy to communicate issues and discuss improvements.”

Leaders spoke about working closely with people, families and professionals and using feedback to shape care delivery, which demonstrated a commitment to collaboration and continuous improvement. Policies supported this vision, including a quality assurance policy which emphasised open communication and protecting people’s human rights. Leaders were also focused on working with local authorities and expanding services to meet community needs.

The provider did not always demonstrate fully robust and effective leadership arrangements. While the registered manager had relevant training and accessed external resources, some governance and oversight processes associated with leadership were not consistently effective.

Concerns identified in recruitment practices, such as inconsistencies in references and right to work checks being completed, indicated that leadership oversight was not always sufficiently robust to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. This reduced assurance that leaders were consistently effective in maintaining safe and compliant systems. While leaders were committed and accessible, further work was needed to strengthen leadership capability in driving consistent quality and compliance.

Staff spoke positively about leaders and described them as supportive and approachable. For example, 1 staff member said, “We have supervision and sometimes managers visit. There have never been any issues.” This showed leaders were visible and engaged in day-to-day care.

The provider had processes and a culture that supported staff to speak up and raise concerns. Leaders told us they actively encouraged staff to share concerns and reflect on practice, including asking staff to consider how they would want care delivered for their own relatives.

Staff meetings, supervisions and day-to-day communication provided opportunities for staff to raise issues and contribute to improvements. Evidence showed regular discussions about care quality and practice, including person-centred care.

The provider promoted an inclusive culture and had policies in place to support equality, diversity and inclusion. Recruitment processes stated a commitment to equal opportunities and included monitoring of protected characteristics.

Training records showed staff had completed equality and diversity training, and policies reflected an understanding of legal requirements and inclusive practice. Although no current reasonable adjustments were required within the workforce, leaders demonstrated an awareness of inclusive practice and a commitment to fair treatment, supported by staff feedback and organisational policies.

The provider did not always have effective governance systems to ensure consistent oversight of quality and risk. Weaknesses in recruitment checks and gaps in documentation demonstrated that governance processes were not always effective in identifying and addressing risks in a timely way.

However, there were systems in place for reporting incidents and meeting statutory requirements, including safeguarding and duty of candour policies, which provided guidance on notifying regulators appropriately. There was evidence of monitoring activity, such as audits of care notes and regular staff observations. Where areas for improvement were identified, timely action was taken.

Risk assessments were detailed, regularly reviewed and reflected people’s current needs. Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities and how to mitigate risks whilst promoting people’s independence.

The provider worked in partnership with people, families and professionals to support coordinated care. Leaders described working closely with families and healthcare professionals, including communication about appointments and care changes. Staff confirmed they communicated well with relatives and supported people during appointments.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of collaborative working, with 1 staff member explaining, “We have good communication with the family,” highlighting the importance of partnership in delivering care. There was also evidence that the provider supported people to access the community where appropriate and worked with external professionals during transitions of care.

The provider did not consistently demonstrate a fully effective approach to learning and continuous improvement.

There were some systems in place to support improvement. The quality assurance policy referenced an annual development plan and the use of feedback from staff, people and relatives to inform improvements. Leaders sought feedback from staff and people and used this to make some improvements, such as adjusting care arrangements and responding to concerns.

Staff meetings included discussions on topics such as infection control and quality of care, showing some commitment to learning. Staff were involved in discussions during team meetings and were encouraged to suggest improvements. One staff member said “I am asked for my thoughts on improvement. Things have improved.”

However, improvements were not always systematically monitored or evaluated. There was limited evidence of formal action plans, measurable outcomes or consistent follow-up to demonstrate sustained improvement. This meant the provider could not always evidence the impact of changes or learning across the service.