Care 4 U Care 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 57 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They
did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Some staff demonstrated a commitment to supporting people and feedback from most people and relatives were positive. A staff member told us, “I like to put a smile on people’s faces (when supporting people).” People told us staff were kind and caring in their approach. A person told us, “I find them (carers) very good at tasks, we have a laugh and a joke.” However, managerial roles and responsibilities were not always clear. Processes were not always followed to manage the day to day running of the service, for example complaints management.
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care. The service had recently gone through a period of change in relation to ownership and management of the service. Some people and relatives told us they were informed of these changes, but some people expressed that they were unclear about recent changes. Most people and relatives did tell us it was possible to contact staff in the office, they felt listened to and that any issues they had were addressed. A person told us, “It’s easy to contact managers, I message or ring, they would listen if I had concerns.”

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Effective processes were not always in place regarding the management of complaints and feedback from people. Staff understood and had received training in whistleblowing. Most relatives and staff demonstrated an overall confidence in raising concerns; however the provider had failed to appropriately report safeguarding concerns to the relevant organisations in line with expectations.

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. Staff had access to training supervision and informal managerial support. No concerns regarding equality, diversity and inclusion were raised during this assessment process.

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, or
share this securely with others when appropriate. Improvements had been made regarding care planning, auditing, governance and supervision of staff. The service had prioritised people’s care plans in the roll out of new systems, record keeping and staff supervision. However, some gaps remained in the frequency of staff supervision and spot checks. The provider had a plan of how often they expected to complete supervision, spot checks and training and had recognised that additional managerial support was needed to meet these expectations. Recruitment was ongoing at the time of assessment for a deputy manager to enable to service to continue to improve in this area. The provider had failed to make the required notifications to both the Local Authority and CQC following a safeguarding incident and had not demonstrated a commitment to or understanding of duty of candour.
 

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. People were able to say who was important to them and have this information recorded in plans of care. This included friends, family and legally appointed deputies. Where necessary, the service recorded information from appropriate health and social care partners. However, the service did not always share information with agencies in line with expectations.
 

The provider sometimes focused on learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. The provider had undertaken a programme of improvement at the service which had contributed to positive outcomes in record keeping, governance and auditing at the service. Some areas for improvement remained at the service, including understanding roles and responsibilities and meeting regulatory requirements.