Fastrack Resources 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

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 inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as 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.

Leaders ensured there was a shared vision and strategy and that all staff knew, understood, and supported it. Leaders and staff trusted each other. Leaders and staff demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them and people and their relatives.

A member of staff said, “The culture is really good. Anything I was unsure about I have been supported with and been given help. I have received information and advice and been supported to identify training. It's been very good”.

A person told us, “I`d recommend them, as I`m extremely happy with the service”. A person’s relative said, “We would recommend them, as this company is not a big faceless, careless organisation where [mum/dad] gets lost in the system”.

Not all leaders demonstrated the required knowledge, skills and credibility to lead effectively. Managers and leaders did not always demonstrate an understanding of the requirements made by CQC. They were not always aware of their own limitations and did not always access support and independent scrutiny when required. There was no evidence they identified their own learning and development needs and made plans to address them.

Managers and staff acted with openness. They were able to offer challenge and hold each other to account in a constructive way. Leaders actively promoted staff empowerment to drive improvement. They encouraged staff to raise concerns and promoted the value of doing so. All staff were confident their voices would be heard. Managers and leaders were open to feedback and staff felt supported to speak up. When concerns were raised, managers investigated, and lessons learned were shared and acted on. When something went wrong, people and their relatives received a sincere and timely apology.

A member of staff told us, “I always put the people first and I raise issues if necessary, and I have never been met with resistance, it is always taken very well”. Another member of staff said, “I feel one hundred percent comfortable to raise issues, if not I would have left”.

Diversity and inclusion were valued in in the workforce. Leaders supported work towards an inclusive and fair culture by ensuring equality and equity for staff.

The governance and oversight of the service was not used to develop a good improvement plan for the service. The provider had failed to sufficiently establish and operate effectively systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided and assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of service users. The provider had not maintained a complete and contemporaneous record of all people’s care and support.

The provider’s had not always carried out quality assurance audits, and some audits were not carried out regularly. There was no evidence the provider had recorded or audited care call monitoring data to ensure staff arrived at and left care calls on time.

Staff and people and their relatives felt the service was well managed. A member of staff told us, “It is good. I haven't had any personal issues myself. It is pretty organised; things have been pretty clear for me. It is good for the people as well, the management know the people as well as we [care staff] do”. Another member of staff said, “The service is managed well, they are open to improvement, they listen to people and they listen to staff”.

A person told us, “It’s very well managed, I get exactly what I need”. A person’s relative said, “It`s well managed, otherwise I wouldn’t be using the service”. Another person’s relative told us, “It seems very well managed. We would recommend it without a shadow of a doubt”.

Leaders, managers and staff understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with people, their relatives and other organisations and services, so services worked seamlessly for people.

There was no evidence of systems and processes in place to ensure continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. Leaders did not demonstrate a good understanding of how to make improvements happen and there was no evidence of a plan in place for this. The service did not have strong external relationships that supported improvement and innovation.