Silverberry Care Kenilworth

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 registered 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.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, with some understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager told us they had devised a business plan to help the continuous improvement of the service as well as ensure the providers expectations of the service were met. The completed plan for 2025 showed numerous actions completed to help deliver a more effective service.

It was not clear how the provider communicated their expected values with staff. However, staff told us they valued the ethos of the company and enjoyed working for Silverberry Care. One staff member told us, “It is a breath of fresh of air, it is a small family run place, and you get to know everybody.” Another staff member told us, “You understand the values of what the care company is supposed to be. There are clear expectations and you understand your role clearly.” A third staff member commented, “I wouldn’t work for any other care company. I like the job itself and the team in the office is very supportive.”

Managers and senior staff completed spot checks and individual supervisions with staff to ensure the level of service expected was provided. One staff member told us they benefited from the support they received and commented, “You definitely get constructive comments. They know how to get the best out of us.”

The provider had inclusive leaders that aimed to deliver care, treatment and support that embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively. They usually did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had not shared information with CQC as required in regards to the personal care service they were providing to 1 person with a learning disability. This meant leaders had not ensured all regulatory requirements were fully understood and registration conditions met, which meant they were not always able to demonstrate the consistent openness and regulatory oversight expected of a well‑led service. The provider has now taken action to rectify this and people and relatives were positive in their comments of the staff and management team. They knew who the registered manager was and told us they had spoken with them. One person told us, “I can speak to them easily and they are very helpful. I have spoken to (registered manager) and she asked me about things; I would recommend it.”

Staff spoke positively of the management team. One staff member described the registered manager as, “Lovely, very nice. You can see and tell they work hard. Every time you come to the office, there is always a nice atmosphere, it is very pleasant. If I had something to say, I wouldn’t think twice about approaching the manager and discussing it.” Another staff member said, “I am always talking to [registered manager], texting her or talking to her on the phone.” A third staff member commented, “The leadership is good and you get a quick response.”

Staff told us the office staff were available and responsive. One staff member told us, “They are very accessible, you can always call them.” Another staff member said, “The office is very responsive and very well organised. When I have contacted the office for whatever reason, the response has been very good and very quick.”

The registered manager advised there was an ‘on call’ arrangement in place to support staff if they needed management support 7 days a week.

The provider did not always foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to raise any issues they had with the registered manager who was responsive to their needs. However, we received information suggesting staff felt uneasy and had reduced confidence to speak up when in the office. This was due to their being CCTV cameras in place despite there being other processes in place to support them to speak up.

During the inspection we identified cameras were being widely used within the main office, working spaces and rooms with a lack of clear signage to indicate their use. Clear and accessible signage is important to ensure visitors and staff are given the opportunity to consent to the use of cameras and recording equipment when sharing sensitive and private information. The provider told us following our visit that stickers were in place to show cameras were in use, however they acknowledged these could be made clearer and agreed to address this.

People and relatives told us they felt confident to raise any concerns with the ‘office’. One person told us, “The office is very good, you can speak to them easily.”

Processes were in place to support staff to speak up with any concerns or suggestions for improving care. This included staff meetings and staff supervision meetings. One staff member told us, “I can talk to [provider] at any time and approach him in confidence. If you complain, you are not seen as the problem. I have flagged up a few things and [provider] has always looked into it and there has always been an outcome.” Another staff member told us, “I would follow the whistleblowing policy, in my company policy documents.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff completed training on equality and diversity to help them understand how to work in an inclusive workplace. Staff were subject to regular checks to support them in embedding the principles of equality and diversity.

There was a diverse staff team to help support people’s needs which enabled staff to have effective communication with those people whose first language was not English. Staff described an inclusive, supportive and values-based work environment where they would be confident to challenge discrimination if they witnessed it.

Each person had an ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’ care plan setting out how they needed to be supported. For example, 1 person’s care plan stated staff were to respect the person’s cultural background and language preferences.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability to support good governance. These systems were not always managed effectively to ensure they acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

As part of the registration conditions of the service, they are not permitted to provide personal care to people living with a learning disability. We found this condition was not fully met in relation to 1 person. Whilst it was evident the person’s needs were being met and their relative was happy with the service, the required actions to remove the registration condition had not been fully progressed at the time of our inspection. This demonstrated that governance systems were not consistently effective in identifying, escalating and managing compliance risks in a timely way, which reduced assurance that leaders had full control of regulatory responsibilities and service oversight. The registered manager told us following our inspection they had resubmitted their application to CQC to remove this registration condition with the view of adding the service user banding of learning disabilities.

People spoke positively about the governance and management of the service. One relative told us, “It’s been outstanding really, since we moved to Silverberry it’s been great, they go the extra mile.”

The provider telephoned people and relatives regularly to obtain their views about the service. This helped to provide assurance they were receiving the quality of service they expected. Records of these called confirmed people’s satisfaction with the service.

The registered manager completed audit checks of the service to ensure people were supported safely. This included medication, falls and care plan audits. They had also completed a business plan of actions required to further improve the service. We noted one of the tasks completed related to care plan tasks, but we found further improvement was needed in relation to this to ensure staff had clear detailed information on expectations when completing care calls.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Relatives described partnership working through regular and effective communication with the service. The registered manager had completed needs assessments and formulated people’s care plans with relatives where appropriate. They had followed up with reviews of people’s care and completed quality checks at regular intervals. The registered manager worked with other health and social care professionals when needed to ensure people's needs were sufficiently supported.

The provider did not always ensure there was continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

Staff meetings took place where any issues relating to the service were discussed and any learning was shared. For example, notes of staff meetings showed more detailed recording was required on medicine records. This was revisited each meeting to ensure the improvements were made. However, we found there continued to be areas of learning needed in relation to medicine records to ensure medicines were managed consistently and safely. Although staff completed training in relation to infection, prevention and control, we were told some staff did not always wear personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons when supporting people. This meant learning was not always effective. While leaders encouraged learning and staff engagement, these issues indicated improvement activity did not always result in sustained or embedded change.

Staff completed regular training including training on the ‘Accessible Information Standard’, equality and diversity and dementia awareness. This was to help ensure they kept up to date with effective ways of working and delivering care. Although staff told us they completed training regularly, it was not clear from records seen that all staff were fully up to date with their required training.

Management staff explained how people and their relatives were supported to ensure they experienced a quality service. People’s care was regularly reviewed to ensure their needs were being met. Where areas of improvement were identified, these were shared with staff and learning was taken from them.