The AICS 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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 71 (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 culture where people received person-centred care. Staff understood the organisational values. They told us they would recommend the agency as a place to work and to care for a loved one. Comments from staff included, “The agency is human focussed. They listen and are committed to both staff and people” and “We build strong relationships with people and see their progress, independence and confidence grow.”

The registered manager was an experienced care manager. They worked alongside a team of managers and senior staff. Managers were knowledgeable and kept up to date with training and best practice guidance. People using the service, relatives, staff and external professionals told us managers were approachable and supportive. Their comments included, “The management team are proactive, hardworking and responsive”, “I have access to management and can raise issues” and “I feel supported and managers respond when I contact them. Guidance is always available.”

There were procedures to enable people using the service, staff and others to speak. Staff told us they could speak up about concerns relating to people using the service and these were acted on. A staff member commented, “I have opportunities to discuss concerns with a manager.”

Some staff did not feel their individual needs were met. For example, 1 member of staff told us they were not always given workplace adjustments which they needed. Another member of staff told us they felt managers sometimes contacted them too much when they were not working and this did not allow them ‘space or private time.’ We discussed this feedback with the management team who agreed to review the support and arrangements for staff to ensure they felt their individual needs were respected and met.

Other staff told us their diversity and needs were valued. Their comments included, “I can discuss any individual needs with my manager and reasonable adjustments are considered” and “My cultural needs are respected and supported. The service treats me with dignity, values my background, and communicates with me in a way that feels safe and inclusive.”

There were effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. The provider carried out a range of audits, made regular checks to ensure people using the service had the support they needed and they acted on feedback, including complaints. People using the service, relatives and staff were asked to provide feedback about their experiences via surveys, reviews and meetings. Managers carried out spot checks to observe staff and make sure they were providing good quality care. The provider responded to complaints and made improvements following these. An external professional told us, “The service appears well‑organised, with oversight of staff practice and good communication between the team.”

The provider worked in partnership with others to help ensure people received joined up care and support. Staff working with each person had meetings and discussions with the other professionals involved in their care. A relative commented, “They are very knowledgeable and work closely with therapists and physiotherapists."

Managers discussed best practice with staff and followed guidance from therapists and other professionals. The management team completed a range of training and attended conferences to network with professionals in the sector. An external professional told us, “Staff understand their roles, follow procedures, and escalate concerns appropriately. The agency engages constructively with other professionals and demonstrates a commitment to maintaining high standards of care.”

The provider had systems to learn and improve the service. The management team attended external events to improve their knowledge about best practice working with people who have acquired brain injuries. They supported staff to attend a range of training to improve their knowledge and skills. They shared learning with other colleagues. An external professional explained, "Managers carry out supervision with staff, and they provide teaching sessions."

The provider had developed new initiatives where they identified areas for development. For example, improving the way they monitored how medicines were being managed, improving digital record keeping and working environments for office staff.