Bargain Health Care Ltd

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 57 (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 vision and strategy, but the delivery of care and lack of accurate records was not aligned with the vision and culture of the service.

The services mission was to deliver high quality, person centred, personal care services in full alignment with the standards set by the Care Quality Commission. However, service objectives were not being monitored through audits to ensure there was oversight of the delivery of the mission and aims of the service.

Staff told us the culture within the service was positive and they were supported when needed. A staff member told us, “I have been working for 3 years. They [management] are very nice, they are available to me whenever I need them. It is a good culture.” A relative told us, “I have no concerns, it has all been positive.”

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and were clear about their responsibilities. They understood their roles and told us the management team supported them.

The management team operated an ‘open door’ policy where people and staff could speak to them at any time to ensure there was an open culture where concerns could be raised and acted upon.

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively.

The registered manager knew people well and was committed in ensuring people received safe and effective care. This was done through seeking feedback from people, relatives and staff. Spot checks were also carried out to ensure staff delivered high quality care. A relative told us, “The manager is a pleasant guy, he is charming. He is good.”

However, there were shortfalls with risk assessments, staffing and record keeping, which would require addressing to ensure people always received safe care and staff were being supported regularly.

Staff meetings for support workers were held regularly by the management team. The agenda included discussion on training and performance.

Staff were positive about the registered manager. A staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is very cooperative, he treats the whole team and myself very well. He is very good.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

A whistleblowing policy was in place that included details on how to raise concerns both internally and externally, which allowed staff freedom to speak up. Whistleblowing is the act of reporting wrongdoing, misconduct, or illegal activities within an organisation.

Systems were in place for staff to raise concerns internally and externally. Staff knew how to use the whistleblowing policy and understood their role and responsibilities of reporting concerns and knew who to go to if they needed to.

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.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. Systems were in place for flexible working arrangements as shift plans showed staff were able to work flexibly. Staff did not have any concerns with lack of support and were positive about the service and the management team valuing diversity.

Minutes from staff meetings demonstrated that staff were fully informed about service developments and staff were able to provide feedback at these meetings. The provider encouraged an open-door policy, allowing staff to raise concerns or suggestions comfortably. A staff member told us, “The management treat us all well, we have no discrimination. They treat us very well.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

There was not an effective quality assurance system in place to identify shortfalls and act on them to ensure people were safe at all times.

Audits had not been completed on care plans and medicines. We found a number of shortfalls such as with risk assessments, medicine management and staff supervision and training. The service lacked oversight in these areas due to no audits being completed to ensure people received safe care and staff were being supported regularly.

The lack of not having robust quality assurance processes and not keeping an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record of people who used the service, may impact on people’s care and support if staff are not able to support people safely and meet their needs.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

The registered manager and staff told us they worked in partnership with health and social professionals to ensure people were always in the best of health. Records confirmed people had access to social and health professionals to ensure they were in the best of health.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning and improvement across the service.

Robust systems were not in place for continuous learning and improvement. Regular robust quality assurance systems were not in place to ensure there was oversight on care and support as we found shortfalls with risk assessments, medicine management and staff support. Lack of quality assurance systems meant that it would be difficult to identify and act on shortfalls to ensure there was a culture of continuous improvement.

Quality monitoring systems were in place that included feedback from people and staff.