Sahal Cares

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 a legal regulation in relation to good governance.

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.

There was a positive and person-centred culture. People using the service, relatives and staff were happy with the agency. Comments from people included, “I am happy with everything” and “I can make choices, request changes if I want and they ask me about everything. They are really good.”

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the agency and felt well supported. Their comments included, “Everyone is really nice and I am happy”, “The manager is supportive and always asks me what I need. It is a nice and calm place to work” and “It is an amazing care agency.”

The registered manager was compassionate and inclusive. People and staff liked and respected them. They told us the registered manager was helpful and available when they needed. However, we identified shortfalls at the service. These showed that the registered manager was not fully aware of legal requirements.

There were systems to enable staff and others to speak up when they felt something was wrong. Staff told us they knew what to do if they had concerns. They explained they felt confident speaking up. The registered manager was open, honest and transparent. When something went wrong, the registered manager apologised to people and explained the actions they were taking to prevent this happening again.

There were policies and procedures to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us their individual needs and diversity were respected. The registered manager supported staff with flexible working arrangements.

The systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service were not always effective. The provider conducted a range of audits. However, these had not always identified shortfalls. This meant that breaches of legal regulations had not been identified or addressed.

The provider record keeping systems were not always effective. Records were not always accurate, up to date or complete. We found gaps in essential records which increased the risks of unsafe and inappropriate care. We discussed these concerns with the registered manager who agreed to make improvements.

The provider worked in partnership with other professionals to provide person-centred care. They contacted health and social care professionals when needed. The registered manager worked with the local GPs and pharmacists when needed.

The provider’s systems for learning and improving had not always been effective. The provider told us they worked with a network of other care managers to discuss best practice. However, they had not always implemented good systems for governance oversight or managing risks.