Marama Care HQ

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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in respect of notification of incidents and good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation.

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.

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, this had improved since the last assessment.

Leaders had clearly set expectations through values‑based guidance and regular communication, including monthly support reports that focused on people’s assessed outcomes, wellbeing and progress. Staff understood the provider’s values and how these applied in practice, particularly when supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability to have choice, control and community involvement. Learning from incidents and practice observations were shared with staff through bulletins and supervision.

Staff told us they were proud of the service and understood what good support looked like. Staff consistently described a shared vision of empowering vulnerable individuals to live independently and safely within the community.

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. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff told us managers were accessible and supportive, and described an open‑door approach where concerns could be raised. Leaders promoted staff development through clear career pathways, in‑house leadership development and ongoing training. During the assessment, leaders were open and honest, responded promptly to feedback, and worked with professionals to implement improvements.

Relatives and professionals told us managers were generally professional and responsive.

One relative told us, “We are very grateful for Marama Care and would be lost without them.”

The provider did not always ensure people, relatives and staff felt confident concerns would lead to effective outcomes, although processes were in place and this is now improving.

Most relatives said they felt able to contact managers and raise issues. However, one relative told us they had raised serious concerns about staff practice and did not always feel the outcomes were satisfactory. There were also concerns about strained relationships with the management team in some cases. Some relatives felt communication could be improved and found sometimes the management team could be rude. Comments included, “Registered Manager doesn’t like being told things aren’t ok. They think everything is wonderful and it’s frustrating”, and “I can’t speak to (Managements names).” However, another relative told us, “Couple years ago I had a concern that I raised to management (which was) promptly resolved with co-operation from the provider.”

Staff told us they could raise concerns and were aware of whistleblowing arrangements.

We saw records of complaints being acknowledged, actioned and providing lessons learnt which was shared across the organisation.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Since our last inspection, the Registered Manager had changed and improvements had been made. The provider was no longer in breach of legal regulations. However, we found governance systems were not always robust, some audits did not include clear actions, timescales or completion dates. Leaders had recognised these shortfalls and had begun introducing strengthened governance arrangements, including external oversight and new quality systems, but these systems and processes had not yet been fully embedded.

We saw records of clear separation between care and the person’s tenancy, empowering people to exercise their rights as tenants. Leaders understood there must be a separation, and people could choose who supported them in their own homes.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.