Age UK Northamptonshire Also known as Age Concern Northamptonshire

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 changed to 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 50 (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. Staff told us that there was a positive caring culture within the service. However, the Registered Manager told us that the strategic goals were “A work in progress” and that it was unclear whether the service would aim to expand. They were having difficulties employing people who were willing to support people with personal care, which limited the amount the service could expand.

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 provider had asked the Registered Manager to step back from the service in 2024 and had employed a different manager, who had not met the legal requirement of registering with the commission. This manager had left the service shortly before the assessment and the Registered Manager had stepped back into the management role. They were only employed part-time, and the provider was advertising for a full-time Registered Manager. Neither the Registered Manager nor the provider had identified all the issues raised during the assessment, although the Registered Manager recognised that changes needed to be made when this was shared with them. Not all staff knew who was currently managing the service.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Staff told us they felt able to share concerns with office staff if they arose. However, the Registered Manager told us they had raised concerns with the provider when they were asked to step back from their role and had not received a satisfactory response. Until the time of the assessment staff had not been receiving supervision and team meetings had not been arranged. These would have provided opportunities for people to speak up, should they feel the need.

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. No concerns were identified in this area during the assessment. Staff told us that they felt supported and treated fairly by the Registered Manager and provider.

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 Registered Manager had not been managing the service until shortly before the assessment. Issues raised during the assessment had not been identified by the Registered Manager or provider before these were highlighted by inspectors. There were no audit processes in place, which could have provided an opportunity to identify areas for improvement. The electronic care records system had been implemented quickly, and this had contributed to records lacking enough information to enable people to be supported safely. The Registered Manager felt that the Provider had not previously recognised the value of the Registered Manager role in the service and the provider was not as involved in the service as they should be.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The service was part of a wider offering from Age UK Northamptonshire who also provided day centres and other support. The service worked with these services and Adult Social Care to signpost people to help when needed.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The provider had not been engaged in the running of the service and did not appear to understand their regulatory requirements. The Registered Manager was previously asked to step back from the service but maintain their registration while an unregistered manager ran the service. There were no monitoring systems in place and so opportunities for improvement had been missed.