MMAB Healthcare- MMAB Consulting 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 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 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. The values of the company were shared with people and staff and promoted by the management. Management had a clear and shared view of how they wanted the service to develop and the positive culture they wanted to foster. We asked staff what worked well at Victoria House Whitfield Court and a staff member replied, “Our vision and values. We care. That's has kept the company moving.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The nominated individual provided hands on care and worked alongside staff to support their development. The Nominated Individual also managed the service but there were plans for the operations director to take over this role and apply to be the registered manager. People and relatives felt the service was well managed and led by capable leaders. A person told us, “[Nominated Individual] gave an air of professionalism and friendliness … Management have always been consistent and positive.” Staff also told us they had confidence in leaders and felt they promoted the values of the service. A staff member said, “[Management] are really nice, approachable and friendly.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People and staff told us they felt concerns raised would be listened to and action taken. Policies supported staff to speak up, providing routes for anonymous concerns as well as signposting them to external agencies.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider recorded and acted on safety incidents and accidents. People and relatives told us they found the management open and honest, and they discussed anything that had gone wrong, with a view to learning and improving the service. Staff told us learning from incidents was shared with them. A staff member said, “Learning is shared in team meetings and through written communication to prevent recurrence [of incidents].”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. Governance and oversight of the service had been inconsistent and not always robust. There had been recent improvement, but some systems were new and still being embedded. For example, the provider had just started using satisfaction surveys to collect feedback from people and relatives. Provider audits had been developed but had not yet been completed. Documents had been set up to regularly monitor visit times. A new member of staff had been appointed to oversee this work, but it was only just being implemented. Although audits were clear and detailed, work was still ongoing to ensure all records including for medicines, recruitment and risks to people were consistently completed. The management were aware of the need for improvement in these areas and had plans in place to address the shortfalls.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider recorded and acted on safety incidents and accidents. People and relatives told us they found the management open and honest, and they discussed anything that had gone wrong, with a view to learning and improving the service. Staff told us learning from incidents was shared with them. A staff member said, “Learning is shared in team meetings and through written communication to prevent recurrence [of incidents].”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. A staff member told us, “We are encouraged to give feedback during meetings, supervisions, and informal discussions. Our suggestions are listened to and often acted upon, which makes us feel valued as a team.” The provider was developing how the service was monitored to drive continuous improvement.