Prominence Care Group

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.

The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to the governance of the service and the requirement to notify CQC of certain events.

This service scored 54 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Whilst the provider had policies and procedures in place, including an equality, diversity and inclusion policy. some of these needed to be reviewed and updated. The provider had not embedded an effective culture where staff always learnt from incidents and accidents, and staff supported people with positive risk taking, which protected their human rights and allowed them to engage in the community.

Feedback and team meeting minutes showed the management team discussed and considered people’s wellbeing with staff, including what was working well to enhance this. Part of the provider’s action plan was to introduce more frequent feedback sessions to engage with staff and identify training/support needs.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager and senior support staff. Whilst the provider had policies and procedures in place, the registered manager had not ensured these were consistently followed. This included aspects of risk management and support planning, complaints, the application of the MCA, and staff recruitment.

The registered manager did not fully understand all the regulatory requirements. Providers that provide health and social care to people are required to inform the Care Quality Commission, (CQC), of important events that happen in the service. This enables us to check that appropriate action had been taken. They had failed to inform the CQC about all incidents as required.

Overall, staff feedback indicated the management team were accessible and approachable. The registered manager told us they were working on areas to develop the service for people.

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

Overall, staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and knew how to report any issues. They told us they had direct contact for the company director should this be required. They were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy. A staff member commented, “We have team meetings, we can put our point of view across. We can vent anything.” Staff feedback forms were being introduced.

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 felt they were treated fairly and the management respected them, including them in meetings and discussions. The provider supported a staff team from diverse backgrounds. Staff completed training in relation to equality legislation. The registered manager told us they were focusing on inclusive practice and were looking to arrange further training in this area.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s governance arrangements were not effective as they had not identified all the concerns we found. Whilst the provider had some auditing processes, they had not identified issues relating to recruitment, support plans, compliance with the MCA, safeguarding and training needs.

The provider had previously arranged a mock inspection through an external consultant and the registered manager said they were working on an action plan in response to the findings. However, there was limited detail about how they would achieve these actions or the timescales for this.

Following our feedback, the provider told us they took our findings seriously and further commissioned the consultancy to provide enhanced quality leadership to make the necessary improvements and developed a further action plan.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The registered manager told us they worked in partnership with others to learn and improve. They had liaised with health social care professionals to discuss changes to people’s needs. However, feedback from external professionals indicated the provider had not always shared required information in a timely way and communication could be improved.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Following a recent serious incident the provider confirmed they had taken action to review the event, along with their policies and procedures and identified areas for improvement. Whilst they had acted in response to the incident, this was reactive. They had not taken a proactive approach to continuous learning and improvement.

In response to our assessment feedback, the provider told us they were committed to making improvements and saw this as an opportunity to learn and develop the service.