Oice Support Services

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 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 vision for how the service was to develop and this was shared through regular communication and staff meetings. The provider also had systems to gather feedback from people using the service and other stakeholders, which we found was generally positive and helped them to monitor and manage the quality-of-service delivery.

The registered manager was visible and led by example. They were aware of the need to monitor the service for any emerging risks to mitigate against any impact on people who received care. Monitoring systems ensured care met the needs of people using the service. Staff were positive about their roles, were well supported by team leaders and managers saying they were approachable and supportive. Any potential indications of poor performance were addressed in a swift and appropriate way, through individual meetings where expectations were clearly set out.

Staff told us they could speak up and voice any concerns and felt confident that any concerns raised would be acted on. People and their relatives told us they were encouraged to share their views and provide feedback about the service. This was by regular telephone monitoring calls to people. Where negative comments were received the service continued to address them. The provider had systems in place to enable staff to speak up and felt safe doing so. One said, “There is a positive working environment, and I feel treated fairly and with respect, making it a positive place to work.”

The provider had policies and procedures for inclusion and diversity within the workforce. For example, recognising people’s protected characteristics and ensuring appropriate measures were in place to support these. (Protected characteristics are a set of nine characteristics that are protected by law to prevent discrimination. For example, discrimination based on age, disability, race, religion or belief and sexuality). The provider employs a diverse workforce, the majority of staff working were under arrangement agreed with the UK Home Office. The provider was mindful of the potential cultural difference and had arranged regular familiarisation sessions for their staff to help them understand the UK cultural norms, including practical issues such as the preparation of common UK foods and how to use UK household appliances.

There were governance, management and accountability arrangements in place. However, some aspects of the provider’s systems were not always effective. For example, staff training records were not in a suitable format for effectively monitoring the training compliance. This was discussed with the provider who stated they would return to their previous way of recording, where this provided clear information for current training and the dates for any refresher training required.
The provider’s other systems, to manage current and future performance and risks to the quality of the service, were proportionate and the provider was open to testing new ideas to improve their service. Guidance on submitting the required notifications to CQC was discussed with the provider and they immediately changed their processes to ensure all CQC notifications would be made appropriately in the future.
 

The registered manager and staff understood the importance and benefits of working alongside other professionals. They demonstrated an open and transparent approach in their communication with external agencies when things went wrong. For example, the provider confirmed they collaborated with external safeguarding teams in the investigation of accidents or incidents and held ‘lessons learned’ sessions for staff, to help reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

The provider had a good understanding of how to make improvements happen. They had a continuous improvement plan in place which included measuring outcomes of improvements. The provider regularly recognised those staff who had ‘gone the extra mile’ in providing support to people by using ‘staff member of the month’ initiatives. One healthcare professional fed back how staff had put into practice the ‘Positive approach to care’ techniques they had recently learned at an external workshop. This was having a positive effect in reducing the person’s upset and distress during care provisions.