Ultimate Homecare 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 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. 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 registered manager had a clear vision and strategy to deliver high-quality care and support. They explained how they wanted to grow the service gradually, so people continued to receive a service from a consistent staff team who had time to deliver person centred care. They explained, “I want people to have time, interaction and quality care. We don’t want to be a conveyor belt of care. I don’t want to wear my staff out; I don’t want them rushing around and more likely to make mistakes."

Staff reflected shared values in their commitment to developing a service providing good standards of care that enabled people to continue living independently in their own homes.

Relatives were positive about the standards of care provided. One relative told us, “I know that they’re quite a new company but, in my opinion, they’re getting it right.” Another relative commented, “The company have made a massive effort to be super supportive.”

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. However, the registered manager accepted that delivering a high percentage of care calls had impacted on the implementation of governance systems.

Staff were confident in the leadership of the registered manager who led by example and demonstrated high standards in the delivery of person-centred care. One staff member told us, “I think [registered manager] is doing a great job and builds those relationships really well with the clients and with the staff. Everyone has a huge amount of respect for [registered manager] because she will set that example for the staff to follow. I would trust my own family under her care. This is not a job to her, this is what she lives and breathes, and it is an absolute pleasure to work alongside her." A relative described the registered manager as, “Amazing.”

The registered manager understood their responsibility under duty of candour to be open and transparent when things had gone wrong.

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

The provider had processes and policies to encourage staff to act on and report any concerns or practices that fell below acceptable standards. One staff member told us, “The worst thing you can possibly do is not flag it up and show your concerns." Another staff member explained, "Some people don’t have their voice or the confidence to have that voice and sometimes you have to advocate for that person and speak up."

Staff felt confident any concerns raised would be listened to and acted upon. One staff member commented, "I think that is 1 thing why I really like working here, because you are heard. You can talk and you are listened to as well."

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 registered manager described how they promoted an inclusive environment by ensuring, where required, reasonable adjustments were introduced to support staff in their role. They explained, "We try and accommodate carers and where we need to, we will adapt to them. Some carers don’t like online training and prefer face to face training."

Staff had received training in equality, diversity and human rights and were confident to challenge discrimination if it was witnessed. Staff told us they were treated fairly and felt valued by the registered manager who was supportive and encouraging of their work.

The provider needed to develop their systems of accountability or good governance to ensure they had the best information about risk, performance and outcomes as the service grew.

As the service was only providing care to 2 people, governance and accountability arrangements were mainly completed on an informal basis. For example, the registered manager checked care plans reflected people's needs and sought people's feedback about the care provided during care calls. Meetings with staff and observations of their practice were not formally recorded and some information we requested was not immediately accessible. Processes to record people’s feedback about the quality of the service had not been implemented. We discussed this with the registered manager who acknowledged that as the service grew, systems needed to be more formalised and become embedded in the running of the service to ensure they captured any organisational issues and risks.

Following our inspection, the registered manager sent us a governance framework they planned to implement within the service.

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 registered manager and staff understood the importance of working collaboratively with other professionals, so people achieved positive outcomes. Relatives described good partnership working which enabled them to maintain a role in their family member’s care.

The registered manager worked in partnership with another domiciliary care agency who shared guidance and support.

The commitment of leaders to delivering good standards of care was limited by the lack of a robust quality assurance system. This meant shortfalls in care delivery may not be recognised and acted upon.

The provider had recently introduced a new electronic system that would support the registered manager in planning care calls, reviewing care delivery and completing audits. Both the registered manager and staff members acknowledged the system was not fully embedded and they continued to use elements of the old paper-based system in their everyday work. Further training in the new electronic system was scheduled.

The registered manager was a member of local provider forums to inform learning and ensure up to date practice within the service.