Eden View Care and Response Services Ltd Also known as Eden View

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 governance at the service. Some systems for oversight were new and not yet embedded. There was limited evidence of continual monitoring of the quality of the service. We found some omissions at this assessment that had not been identified or remedied by the provider.

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. Management had a clear vision of their value and ethos, and this was communicated with staff. Most staff felt the service aligned to these values and that they were working together for a common aim. Staff told us management were approachable and available if they needed them. A staff member told us, “Eden View Care and Response Services Ltd management and staff are all very helpful and are always on hand whenever I may need help with anything whilst working and outside of work.”

Leaders did not always fully understand their roles and responsibilities. The nominated individual had delegated tasks to the manager, who was applying to be the registered manager. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity provided. The manager told us some of the omissions in the service were due to them being new to the role and not fully understanding all the regulatory or contractual requirements. They had been working with the local authority to make the necessary improvements. Additional staff had been recruited to help with oversight. The nominated individual had daily contact with the manager for informal support. The manager had not received supervision but told us they felt supported by the nominated individual. Oversight of the service had not been robust, and some checks had only just been introduced. Improvement was needed to ensure leaders had better oversight and met all their roles and responsibilities.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had implemented new processes to help identify learning, but these were not yet embedded. For example, audits in the service were new and were not always identifying and rectifying issues we found at this assessment. Staff had not routinely had meetings, supervision sessions or appraisals to share good practice and learning. There were new processes to gather feedback from people who used the service, but these had only been introduced recently. The service did identify learning from safeguarding incidents and shared this with staff. Management investigated and reported safety events.

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. Recruitment processes, training and policy and procedures were in place to support equality, diversity and inclusion.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. The provider had implemented new processes for governance, but these were new and not yet embedded. Audits in the service were new and were not always identifying and rectifying issues found at this assessment. For example, there were omissions in recruitment, care plan reviews, staff supervision and appraisals. This resulted in a breach relating to good governance. The provider was aware that these areas needed improvement and had been working to an improvement plan. The provider had taken on additional staff to help update records, such as care reviews, and complete quality checks alongside the manager.

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 was working to an improvement action plan agreed with the local authority. The local authority fed back they had seen gradual improvements with the service. The manager had fostered relationships with local professional teams and had good knowledge of the health and social care networks available to support the service.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Systems to support learning, innovation and improvement were new and not embedded. Although there had been recent improvement to systems to drive improvement, there was currently limited information collected to allow the provider to develop the service. The manager was part of several forums and networks to share good practice and showed a willingness to learn and innovate.