ONECARE WORLD HEALTH LIMITED

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 71 (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. People and their relatives shared information with us about their experience of the service, which was mixed. A relative told us, “We are very happy with the care, I can trust them in the house and with [person’s name].” Whilst a person who used the service told us they had experienced numerous problems at the start with the package and staff not following what they wanted, however they said this had improved recently. The provider’s vision for the service was to recognise and value individuals, considering peoples preferences, rights and offering choice and empowerment. The provider focussed equality, diversity and human rights in their approach to delivery of people’s care. All care plans included specific information to support people in their preferred way. Staff were supported with a focus on equality and could give examples of the support they received from the management team and how this shaped the care and support given to people.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The registered manager had systems in place to ensure staff were supported and received compassionate care. A staff member shared an example of the support they had received when something had gone wrong and how the registered manager had anonymised the concerns to share learning with other staff.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was a whistleblowing policy in place. All staff were aware of the policy and told us they felt confident any concerns would be addressed. Staff told us if the concerns were not addressed, they would report them to other agencies.

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 provider had a focus on equality and diversity for staff. The provider’s recruitment policy for example set out how they would operate a fair, lawful and consistent approach to recruitment which was transparent, fair and non-discriminatory. Staff conversations and records we saw supported the approach described.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. The registered manager had systems in place to check the quality of the service people received. We saw the systems in place to ensure care was delivered and medicines were administered were identifying areas for improvement. Checks were carried out on staff practice which were also identifying where things needed to improve. These checks were referenced by people, their relatives and staff as being a system in place to enable improvements and feedback.

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. Partners told us the provider had worked with them to carry out an audit of the service and had been open and transparent in the process. Partners raised no concerns with us about how the provider worked in partnership and collaborated in the delivery of people’s care. The registered manager shared the example of how they worked in partnership with a local authority to provide reablement packages of support designed to help people retain and regain their independence.

The providers learning and improvement systems were not consistently identifying areas of improvement and assessing peoples experience, outcome and quality of life. Whilst learning systems were in place some additional areas for improvement were identified during the inspection which had not been identified through the providers systems. For example, there was no learning process and check in place with recruitment processes, which meant some gaps in information had not been identified. People gave mixed feedback about the service and whilst this had been shared with the provider, and actions had been taken, this was not reflected in the documents we saw. There were some gaps in the environmental risk assessments used, which had also not been picked up. This meant some improvements were needed to ensure all aspects of the service were considered for learning and improvement.