Motaryli 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 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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

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. At the time of our assessment the provider had 1 person receiving care and 2 members of staff employed at the service. The registered manager told us being a small-scale service allowed them to offer, “Consistency, responsiveness and close oversight.” Their plans to expand the service and these goals and aims were outlined in their ‘strategic growth’ plan.

Although the provider had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, the manager did not always have the knowledge or understanding to ensure the service provided safe and effective care in line with best practice guidance. For example, there were shortfalls around best practice in relation to care planning, assessing risk, consent and the safe recruitment of staff. However, the registered manager demonstrated their good values, a willingness to improve and were pro-active in addressing the concerns raised throughout the inspection. The registered manager told us their plans to ensure the feedback given to them was embedded for the person receiving care at the service and for any future people receiving care by the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service had a comprehensive whistleblowing policy in place for staff to refer to if they required guidance on speaking up. We did not get a response from staff around their ability to speak up. However, the registered manager placed high value on staff well-being and understood how the policy was implemented within their service.

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. Processes were in place which helped to protect the rights of staff under the Equality Act. This helped to create a more equitable and inclusive organisation. Due to the small nature of the service, there was flexibility for staff and evidence of amended work patterns.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Management systems were not effective in identifying shortfalls in the quality and safety of the service. The provider’s systems had failed to identify multiple concerns identified at this inspection, such as the failure to assess, review and manage risks to the person. The provider had also failed to operate robust recruitment procedures, including undertaking checks to ensure the people employed were of good character or had the qualifications, competence, skills and experience necessary.

There was also a lack of oversight around the person’s mental capacity and consent. As the service was informally managing finances, practices required further improvement to ensure that where informal money management activities were taking place, the correct processes were in place in line with the service’s policy and legislation.

As the service was in its infancy, improvements had not yet had the chance to fully be implemented, sustained or embedded. This information was feedback to the management team, who gave assurances about their plans to strengthen the systems in place for the person within their care.

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 service had established good links in the local community and had worked in partnership with key organisations.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The provider’s systems failed to identify shortfalls and support learning to make improvements. The care plan and risk assessment records were not always detailed and there was a lack of analysis to identify shortfalls in the quality of information or guidance available to staff. Quality assurance systems required improvement to evidence continuous learning and development within the service.