Network Healthcare - Harrow

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. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We identified a breach of legal regulation relating good governance.

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.

Improvements were needed to ensure governance was more robust and effective in managing the day-to-day quality assurance of the service. This would help ensure actions identified in quality audits were followed through and embedded into the service.

Management had meetings with staff to discuss the expectations of the organisation and any concerns they had. Staff undertook a range of training to help ensure procedures were followed. There was regular communication between staff so that they could share their experiences and learn from one another.

The registered manager was experienced and had worked at the service for a long time. They had a management in care qualification. Staff told us management were knowledgeable and provided them with the support they needed to do their job effectively. A member of staff said, “It is a good place to work. It really is. I absolutely have a good working relationship with the manager.”

Despite positive feedback from staff, this assessment found that management did not demonstrate clear insight into issues affecting the quality of the service. Whilst the management team completed some audits and checks on the service, these had not identified issues, concerns or priorities for the quality of the service.

There was open communication between management and staff. Regular meetings and effective communication between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss people’s individual support needs and the running of the service.

There was an organisational structure in place and staff understood their roles, responsibilities and contributions to the service. The registered manager was supported by the director.

Staff told us they knew how to speak up if they had concerns or something went wrong. They felt the registered manager and the organisation supported them and listened to them.

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff.

There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up. Systems were in place for staff to raise anonymous concerns.

The service promoted a positive culture amongst staff where they felt able to speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff spoke positively about working at the agency and said that their diversity needs were met. Staff were supported with flexible working conditions, felt discrimination would be challenged and had opportunities to celebrate their diversity.

Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. These were implemented through recruitment practices, training, and support for staff.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Policies and procedures supported this. Relevant legislation and best practice guidance was implemented to ensure staff were treated in a fair and equitable manner. Recruitment processes supported fair employment opportunities.

Governance processes were not always effective. Audits and checks were not consistently carried out. Some audits had failed to identify issues with found in respect of the completion of MARs. These audits contained limited information and there was no clear record of lessons learnt.

There were some areas where the service had failed to carry out audits and consequently failed to take appropriate action to address issues. For example, MAR audits were not carried out consistently and in a timely manner. Failing to carry out such checks within a reasonable period meant there was an increased risk that there was a delay identifying medicine errors. We looked at a sample of MARs for May and June 2025 and found numerous instances where there were gaps and incomplete information and these had not yet been identified.

There was no evidence that audits had been carried out to identify the shortfalls we found in respect of risk assessments.

The current auditing systems in place were not robust enough to assess and improve the safety and quality of the services being provided to people.

We raised this with management who responded positively to our feedback and told us they would review and amend their audits to ensure they were effective at identifying shortfalls.

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 provider told us they worked with a range of other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care.

The provider had failed to effectively monitor all aspects of the performance of the service. Records indicated that the service did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement.

There were systems for learning but these were not always put into practice. Accident/incident forms did not include information about lessons learnt and there was no information of action the service could take to try and prevent reoccurrence. We found shortfalls in respect of regular staff supervisions and lack of information about people’s capacity in care plans. The provider had failed to identify these issues as part of their checks.

People and relatives told us that there was not a clear system for obtaining feedback. We discussed this with management who advised that they had regular telephone calls from people and relatives to obtain feedback and a satisfaction survey was carried out in May 2025. The registered manager confirmed that they would have further discussions with people and relatives to encourage them to provide feedback.