Vestra Homecare Hartlepool

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 was the first inspection 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 79 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Overall staff described Vestra Homecare Hartlepool as a caring organisation that valued both clients and employees. Many felt proud to work for the service and spoke positively about the impact they had on people’s lives. Examples included staff going above and beyond to support individuals with complex needs, such as helping people attend family events or access community services.

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 always did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Leaders were visible, approachable and committed to delivering high-quality care. Staff consistently praised the support they received from managers and coordinators, with many citing specific examples of compassionate leadership, such as adjustments made during bereavement or pregnancy. The directors were described as hands-on and responsive, and staff felt their wellbeing was prioritised. Staff encouraged to contribute ideas and raise concerns. Several carers reported that their suggestions had led to changes in care plans or rotas, and others felt empowered to advocate for people who used the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had systems in place to support staff to speak up, and most felt confident raising concerns. Safeguarding alerts were generally dealt with promptly, and staff described management as responsive and professional. Overall staff felt supported, though some reported communication and feedback strategies could be improved. The management team consistently explored how communication could be improved. Staff were encouraged to speak up at meetings, share their views and in a confidential manner, if they wished.

The provider and management team valued diversity in their workforce and ensured they followed best practices guidance. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Examples included themed supervision sessions on caring for LGBTQ+ individuals and supporting people with alcohol dependency. Staff described the training as comprehensive and helpful, and some felt their personal circumstances were respected and accommodated.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Governance arrangements were effective, and the provider had systems in place to monitor quality and manage risk. Our data analysis showed high levels of compliance with call logging and punctuality, any anomalies we noted the management team had identified and investigated. Staff described clear lines of accountability and felt the service was well managed. Regular audits, care plan reviews, and medication oversight were in place, and concerns were generally addressed in a timely manner. Staff demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement and sustainability.

The management team clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The staff team worked effectively with external professionals and community organisations. Feedback from commissioners and social workers highlighted strong partnership working, open communication, and a shared focus on person-centred care. Staff routinely attended multidisciplinary meetings and contributed to joint problem-solving. Examples included collaborative work with pharmacies, district nurses, and social services to support individuals with complex needs. The provider was described as responsive and solution-focused, and professionals felt confident in the quality of care delivered.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. Staff received regular training and supervision, and themed sessions were used to enhance knowledge on key topics such as pressure care and communication. Lessons learned from incidents were shared, and changes were made to improve practice. Innovation was evident in the provider’s approach to person-centred care, with examples of staff adapting support to meet individual goals and preferences. The service used electronic systems to monitor performance and continuity, and staff felt supported to develop professionally.