Homecare With Caring Angels 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. Agree rating

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.

This service scored 61 (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 always create a positive culture.

The registered manager was able to explain the vision they were creating for people who used the service, staff we spoke with were aware of this. The registered manager told us and staff confirmed that staff meetings were held. However, these were not documented and there was no evidence of which staff had attended or what was discussed. The lack of documented systems in place meant the provider did not have the evidence to demonstrate they worked openly and transparently.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support.

The lack of effective systems in place demonstrated a lack of capability within the management and leadership team. The registered manager had not identified the importance of documenting audits, staff meeting or reviews so improvements could be identified and actioned. As there were no documents in place in these areas for us to review we could not be assured all concerns had been identified and this placed people at potential risk.

However, people and relatives were happy with how the company was managed and spoke positively about this. One person said, “I find most people easy to talk to and I find management are very good. I would recommend them”. One relative told us, “They are all absolutely brilliant. I am an ex-nurse, and she is being cared for how I would want her to be cared for. I would recommend this agency to others”.

Care staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and when they needed to escalate concerns.

The registered manager was aware of and understood their legal responsibilities around notifying CQC about any important events that had happened in the service.

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

There was a whistleblowing policy in place. Staff were aware of these procedures. The service had created an environment where staff were able to speak up and raise concerns when needed, the registered manager told us they would encourage staff to raise concerns. In the office we saw information signposting staff where to go for support and the processes to follow.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce.

There were procedures in place to consider staffs’ individual needs, this included considering staff’s diverse needs and treating all staff fairly and equitably. Staff felt they were treated in an inclusive way.

There were not always effective systems in place to make changes and identify areas of improvement.

There were no documented audits in place, therefore we could not be assured the systems the provider used could be maintained as this service grows. The registered manger told us they were aiming to grow the service once rated. The systems in place are not currently consistently effective.

The registered manager and the leadership team reviewed calls times and the administration of medicines daily on the live system to ensure no concerns had been identified, when concerns had arisen, they told us they had addressed these immediately. Improvements were needed as the provider needed to ensure these reviews were documented. We found no concerns with how people received their medicines or calls.

Other key aspects of people’s care were not always documented, and improvements were needed to ensure this was in the future. For example, reviews and spots checks were carried out on staff and for people. There was no information in place to support this had occurred; however, staff and people were able to tell us about this.

After our inspection the registered manager sent us examples of written audits which they were planning to introduce, this included an audit of medicines, employment files, care plans and risk assessments. We will review this as part of our next inspection.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

There were systems in place to ensure the provider worked in partnership with other agencies. The registered manager told us they made referrals to other professionals when needed and worked alongside the district nurse team to deliver care to people. As part of this assessment, we asked the Local Authority for feedback, and we received no concerns.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation.

The systems currently in place were not effective to drive improvements. As most of the systems were not recorded or documented it meant we could not be assured all learning opportunities were considered. The registered manager told us they were aware they needed to improve this area; on the inspection they told us they would reflect on our site visit and send us an overview of the actions they were going to take. They sent us this after our inspection.