Carinyo Care Ltd

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 regulations in relation keeping their statement of purpose up to date, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

This service scored 46 (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 shared vision, strategy or culture that promoted transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity, inclusion or meaningful engagement. They did not demonstrate an understanding of the challenges faced by people using the service or the needs of the communities they served.

We found the provider was not operating from their registered location. A registered location is the place from which a regulated activity is carried on. The provider was not working within the scope of their registration or their Statement of Purpose, which stated the registered manager worked from the registered office 100% of the time. We raised this with the provider and asked them to review their registration details.

Staff confirmed they had never visited the registered office. Staff meetings and supervisions were carried out remotely via Microsoft Teams. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that the registered location was being used as described, or that governance arrangements were aligned with regulatory requirements.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

We found the provider did not have a clear vision or credible strategy for promoting and developing the service. When we reviewed the provider’s website, it stated they offered qualified nurses as part of their provision. We advised the provider that they were not registered to provide nursing care, and therefore the information on their website was inaccurate and not aligned with their registration.

Staff told us they did not always feel able to speak up or that their voice would be heard.

While staff said they could raise concerns with the registered manager, they did not feel comfortable raising issues, particularly around pay, with other leaders. Some staff reported they feared their employment or their certificate of sponsorship could be at risk if they spoke up. This indicated that not all staff felt safe or supported to raise concerns without fear of negative consequences.

The provider did not demonstrate, they valued diversity within their workforce. They were not working towards an inclusive or fair culture that promoted equality and equity for the people who worked for them.

Staff told us they were employed as “Live in” carers and worked long hours for a daily rate of £90. We raised this with the provider, who told us pay was due to be reviewed. However, staff reported the provider had since had their sponsorship licence revoked, and they were worried about their future employment and the impact this could have on their families. The provider told us, staff did not work excessive hours, however, people confirmed staff worked from 10 hours per day to all day.

Staff confirmed and we saw in meeting minutes, the provider had recently started to pay staff for attending staff meetings and supervisions outside of their working hours. While this was a positive step, it did not fully address the wider concerns staff raised about fairness, pay, and job security.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles or systems of accountability in place, and governance arrangements were not sufficiently robust. They did not consistently act on the best information available about risk, performance or outcomes, nor did they always share information securely with others when appropriate.

Governance audits required further development to ensure they were identifying where improvements were needed. Existing processes had not highlighted gaps in safe recruitment, medicines management, or areas where CQC regulatory requirements had been missed, such as the failure to submit statutory notifications.

Where governance processes had identified issues, there was limited evidence of follow‑up or improvement planning. For example, a medication audit completed on 26 March recorded an overall compliance score of 73%, but there was no accompanying action plan or information to show how the provider intended to improve this score.

The provider had also not identified concerns relating to staff training and competency. There was no evidence they had recognised the lack of face‑to‑face training, or that some staff were training and competency‑checking others without having the appropriate skills or competence themselves.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership so services could operate smoothly for people. They shared information and learning with partners when required and demonstrated some willingness to collaborate for improvement.

However, the involvement of external health professionals was very limited. There had been some contact with professionals prior to one person passing away, and we were told no concerns had been raised about the individual’s care. Aside from this, there was little evidence of proactive engagement with health or social care partners to support people’s ongoing needs or improve outcomes.

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

There were no effective systems in place to ensure learning when things went wrong. For example, a safeguarding concern had not been shared with relevant teams to promote openness, transparency or wider organisational learning.

We were not assured the provider had robustly or safely assessed the impact of staff working for several weeks at a time on both their well-being and the well-being of the person they supported.

The provider had not engaged with external professionals to embed best practice. We found they had not supported staff to be signed off on their basic life support training. Staff had also not received face‑to‑face moving and handling training, as the provider was waiting to place them on courses run by other organisations. No consideration had been given to how the provider could independently improve training access or outcomes for staff.