FastFallsResponse 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 newly 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

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

People were encouraged and supported to make choices and maintain their independence. There was a shared culture throughout the service, with staff consistently speaking about the service’s positive and person-centred approach. Staff told us they worked to the same goal of providing immediate response services for individuals who needs support in their own home. Staff told us they felt part of the team and liked working at the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Staff confirmed the management were approachable and supportive. One staff member said, “The registered manager is a brilliant manager and is always going above and beyond for us staff, clients and also our client’s family members.” Another staff member told us. “The registered manager is present, always available, kind, loyal and supportive.”

Relatives gave positive feedback about the management of the service. A relative told us, “The registered manager is extremely approachable and friendly and always has time to listen to anything we want to discuss.”

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

Staff told us they knew how to raise, and report concerns to external organisations. Comments included, “I feel that my views, suggestions and concerns are listened to by management. I feel comfortable sharing my opinions and raising any concerns when necessary. I appreciate being given the opportunity to contribute and feel that feedback is taken seriously”, “If I need to report any concerns I find this is very easy for me to report and time and patience is always given to allow me time express my concerns”, and “I have regular one-to-one supervision with a senior member of staff. I feel comfortable discussing any concerns, challenges or questions during these sessions, and I find the support and guidance very helpful in my role.”

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 valued working for the provider. One staff member said, “I feel incredibly supported by my registered manager, they go above and beyond for our team and for my own wellbeing, always easy to contact and is very supportive and understanding.” Another staff member told us they loved working for the service.

New staff completed a health questionnaire form in case any reasonable adjustments at work should be explored.

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 failed to identify the shortfalls identified at this inspection in relation to recruitment processes, risk assessments, the management of incidents and accidents, and governance systems. This meant that quality assurance arrangements were not applied consistently and were ineffective. Therefore, people were at increased risk of avoidable harm as best practice was not embedded in all aspects of service delivery.

The provider did not always submit notifications of relevant events to CQC. However, the provider made the necessary notifications retrospectively. A notification is the action that a provider is legally bound to take to tell us about any changes to their regulated services or incidents that have taken place in them.

In response to the inspection feedback, the provider had begun implementing changes and improvements to the operation of the service. While positive action had been taken, the improvements were newly introduced and required further time to become embedded in practice and to demonstrate sustained effectiveness.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so providers work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Records showed the service maintained regular communication with health and social care professionals, as required, to ensure people's needs were met.

Health and social care professionals did not raise any concerns about partnership working with the service.

The service 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.

Management systems were not in place to drive improvements and due to a lack of oversight, action was not always taken, and shortfalls were not always rectified in a timely way. Although action had been taken in response to the inspection feedback, the changes were not yet fully embedded, and additional time was needed to evidence their effectiveness and demonstrate sustained improvements in practice.