Congratulation Quality Care Also known as Congratulation Quality Care And Cleaning Services 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

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.

This service scored 62 (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 culture. The provider and staff worked collaboratively with relevant healthcare services to ensure delivery of care. A clear management structure was in place. Staff had clear roles and responsibilities and were informed of their roles and reporting arrangements. Staff spoke positively about the management of the service. A staff member told us “It is a good company, and everyone is supportive. They are very protective about people and staff.”

The provider had inclusive leadership. The service operated in an open way and the nominated individual was visible at all levels and available for staff when needed. A staff member told us, “We can always talk and share things with each other.” Another staff member told us “They are very supportive. They call us to ask how we are doing and if there are any problems.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where staff felt they could speak-up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they knew how to speak-up if they had concerns or something went wrong. They felt the provider supported them and listened to them. Staff were able to discuss issues at supervision meetings and team meetings. A staff member told us, “We have team meetings every month where we discuss care plans, people’s needs and if there are any improvements needed.” Another staff member told us, “We have team meetings and can discuss any concerns.”

People and relatives were able to approach staff and the provider if they had any concerns. Relatives told us “The service is easy to contact and they give good information. We were given an out of hours contact number but haven’t needed to use it.” Another relative told us “My experience is of a proactive service that is quick to respond openly to any contact from me. At first, they provided a comprehensive handbook, it came across as a robust well managed company and has proved to be so. I’d trust them to respond appropriately if I had any concern.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. The nominated individual and staff worked together as a team. Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion to enable a more equitable and inclusive organisation.

The provider did not always have good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk. Audits and checks were completed to assess and monitor the quality of the service covering areas such as record keeping, medicines, health and safety, spot checks and infection control. Where issues were identified, action was taken to improve on the quality of the service where needed. However, during this assessment, we found recruitment processes were not always robust and risks to people were not always assessed.

We raised these issues with the nominated individual who advised us of the actions they would take in response to the issues raised during this assessment which included training for staff to administer eyedrops, implementing measures to ensure recruitment processes were robust and risks to people were reviewed. During this assessment, we found the provider to be open and receptive to feedback and cooperated with the assessment process and willing to learn from feedback.

The service had no registered manager in place due to the previous manager having to leave due to unforeseen circumstances. The nominated individual told us they had already started the process of recruiting of a new manager. We will follow up these areas at the next assessment.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate, work in partnership and share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. The provider worked with a range of other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care.

The provider focused on learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. Processes were in place to ensure learning was reflected and good practice identified from feedback and audits which monitored the quality of service being delivered. People, relatives and staff were encouraged for their views about the service and what could be improved. The service worked with healthcare professionals that supported learning and good practice to deliver effective joined up care.