RSBC 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 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 provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the 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.

The provider had a clear vision in place that focused on care being delivered in a way they would want their family to receive. This vision was disseminated to staff who then passed this onto people they supported through their care. One relative told us, “They are very family orientated, they are like your own family.”

Staff and leaders were positive and compassionate and listened to people they supported in order to deliver care in the way they wanted. People were supported by staff and leaders who were motivated to build a rapport and trust with them.

Staff and leaders understood equality and diversity and provided care to people in a compassionate way that considered people’s individual differences. Staff morale was high and staff were complimentary about the support they received from leaders.

The directors told us they thought it was important to treat their staff well with a view to ensuring staff passed this on to the people they supported. The directors told us about benefits staff received such as receiving birthday cards, flowers and free transport if needed to get to their care calls.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff raised concerns about safety but the provider did not always formally investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Risks relating to the governance of the service were not always understood and were overlooked which had the potential to place people at risk of harm.

Incidents, accidents and complaints were not always documented which meant the provider could not be assured they had identified patterns, learnt where things went wrong and taken appropriate action to mitigate risk to people. For example, people told us there had been isolated missed calls they had reported but there was no record of this.

People and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident they would not be treated negatively if they did so. One relative told us they had raised a concern about a member of staff which may have been a conflict of interests with the directors, but this was treated professionally and responded to immediately.

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

People and staff were confident they could speak up and their concerns would be addressed. Staff told us they shared concerns with office staff and they would be responded to in an appropriate and timely way. For example, when people had been waiting for medical attention, staff contacted the office and office staff attended to stay with the person to wait for the ambulance to arrive.

When something went wrong, people and relatives told us they received an apology and immediate action was taken to rectify their concerns.

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 gave positive feedback regarding the provider. Staff told us the provider was supportive and treated them fairly. Staff told us the office staff were always approachable, and action was taken if they had any concerns regarding how they were treated.

The provider was motivated to encourage a positive culture for staff and was flexible in making reasonable adjustments when needed to consider the individual needs of staff. Staff told us how the provider considered their family and work circumstances when giving them shifts which they appreciated.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff raised concerns about safety but the provider did not always formally investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Risks relating to the governance of the service were not always understood and were overlooked which had the potential to place people at risk of harm.

Incidents, accidents and complaints were not always documented which meant the provider could not be assured they had identified patterns, learnt where things went wrong and taken appropriate action to mitigate risk to people. For example, people told us there had been isolated missed calls they had reported but there was no record of this.

People and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident they would not be treated negatively if they did so. One relative told us they had raised a concern about a member of staff which may have been a conflict of interests with the directors, but this was treated professionally and responded to immediately.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider did not always understand when to collaborate with partners to improve care for people. For example, where one person’s Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) assessed diet was changed, the provider failed to obtain any confirmation of this from SALT which may have placed the person at risk. There were no systems in place to identify that this had not been clarified.

The provider lacked knowledge regarding when to share information with CQC to ensure people’s safety was maintained. For example, they were unable to tell us when statutory notifications should be submitted to CQC.

Despite this, we saw examples of when the provider had been proactive and liaised with health professionals when people needed additional support regarding their healthcare needs.

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. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider did not always engage in learning opportunities that may have helped them to improve their governance of the service. Whilst the provider focused on providing personalised care to people they supported, they were not always proactive in learning about how to effectively govern and check the quality of the care being provided.

Leaders were not always sure how to make improvement to governance which meant they could not always be assured their oversight of the service was adequate.

Systems in place to ensure learning happened were not robust and whilst informal feedback and information sharing occurred, we did not see any evidence of analysis of accidents and incidents or processes to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Despite this, leaders encouraged staff to informally reflect and share concerns with them so they could take action to improve the service.