Platinum Care 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

We found shortfalls in the provider’s governance systems. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

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.

Improvements were required in the governance of the service to ensure it was robust and effective in day-to-day quality assurance. Audit processes needed strengthening to ensure concerns were identified and dealt with in a timely way. It was also not clear how the staff team as a whole understood and acted on the vision and strategy of the service.

Staff described a generally supportive culture within the home; however, some staff told us teamwork needed to be improved.

We raised the concerns we had found during our inspection with the registered manager and the provider. They were responsive and took immediate action to address the issues and shared a detailed action plan.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Staff and relatives were positive about the registered manager and the staff team. The registered manager was visible within the service and involved in the day‑to‑day running of the home. However, whilst the registered manager was compassionate and caring, they did not always have effective oversight of care delivery, treatment and support. This meant they were not consistently identifying or addressing shortfalls in people’s care and learning from incidents. Gaps in governance and risk oversight meant people could not always be assured the service was consistently well-led and lessons were used to drive improvements in care quality.

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

Relatives and professionals shared positive feedback about the service. They told us it was easy to contact the registered manager or staff team.

Staff were able to tell us how they would escalate concerns for people within the organisation and with the involvement of other agencies if required.

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 promoted equality and diversity within the workforce and ensured staff were treated fairly and with respect. Staff spoke positively about how they were supported in their roles and felt their individual diverse needs were supported. Staff shared with us how the registered manager had supported them in their individual circumstances and provided support in both their personal and professional lives. Policies and practices reflected a commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion, and staff had access to relevant training to support their understanding.

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.

Governance systems were in place but were not consistently effective in identifying and addressing risks in a timely way. Although the providers own systems had identified concerns prior to our assessment, they had failed to act on these in a timely way.

We identified concerns in relation to health and safety, poor infection control practice, poor food handling practice, fire safety, environmental risks and improvements needed in relation to Right support, right care, right culture principles. The provider acted very promptly in response to feedback and expedited their own action plan; however, these actions were reactive.

The provider has shared with us an updated action plan and has been open and transparent throughout the process. They have responded to assurance and information we requested, in a timely way. They have given assurance that additional support mechanisms have been implemented to ensure the improvements made are sustained.

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 worked effectively in partnership with other agencies to support people’s health and wellbeing and promote positive outcomes. Professionals provided entirely positive feedback about the registered manager and staff team. A professional told us, “During all of my visits, the staff have been welcoming, and it is nice to see that they have a consistent and stable team. The home does not feel institutional, even though there are plenty of safeguards in place to ensure that everyone remains safe.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The lack of effective systems and processes meant concerns were not consistently identified or addressed in a timely way. There was limited evidence of lessons being shared with staff to support improved practice. Our findings at this assessment indicated they had not always been effective in identifying and addressing areas which needed improvement, and learning was reactive, rather than proactive.

The provider was keen to demonstrate they were committed to continuous learning and improvement.They demonstrated an openness, integrity and a willingness to learn from our feedback. The provider took immediate action on the day of our assessment and significant improvements were in place on subsequent days.

The provider told us they were implementing a number of improvements. A new electronic care planning system to help plan, record and coordinate care more effectively had recently been implemented. Their quality assurance system was also being developed so it was more effective. The registered manager had also implemented digital audio books which were innovative. However, it was not always clear where staff had been encouraged to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation.

The provider told us senior manager’s from across the provider’s services met regularly to share learning from events which enabled them to take action to reduce risks.