Brookmead Health and Social Care Solutions Private Limited

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

Not rated.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this key question.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

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.

The registered provider’s vision for the service, included plans for growth, the delivery of high-quality care, and person-centred support. It was unclear how the registered provider’s vision linked to an understanding of the challenges and needs of people and communities the service was looking to support.

Leaders did not understand 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.

Information requested during the assessment was not readily available and delayed. This limited our ability to gain assurance that the registered provider had effective oversight of the service.

The registered provider described a vision for the development of the service and expressed a commitment to delivering person-centred care. They were unable to demonstrate an awareness of relevant best practice guidance and did not provide evidence of how they accessed support to strengthen their leadership or improve the quality of the service.

We did not see sufficient evidence of leadership development to assure us that leaders would have the capacity and capability to effectively manage, monitor, and sustain the service as it grew. In addition, the registered provider had not adequately considered the diverse social care needs of the communities they supported or how these would be met through service development.

As a result, we could not be assured how leaders had fully considered risks associated with service expansion would be identified, assessed, monitored, and mitigated. Furthermore, we were not assured that effective systems were in place to maintain oversight of quality, safety, and service performance during periods of growth.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The registered provider described how they wanted to create a culture where people felt able to speak up and contribute to service development. Surveys were in place to gather feedback from people who use the service, however systems to review the results, identify trends, and implement actions had not yet been developed.

The registered provider confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity, demonstrating an awareness of the importance of promoting an inclusive workplace culture and ensuring equitable treatment of staff. As the service was in the early stages of development and the registered provider was the only employee in post at the time of the assessment, there was limited evidence available to demonstrate how equality, diversity, and inclusion principles were embedded within workforce practices, such as recruitment, induction, supervision, and staff development. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to make a judgement or award a score against this quality statement.

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.

The registered provider used an external company to undertake audits and support the monitoring of service quality and identification of areas for improvement. However, we found there was no overarching service improvement or action plan in place to demonstrate how audit findings would be tracked, addressed, and reviewed to drive continuous improvement.

While audits had been completed, these did not include direct observations of care practice or service delivery. This limited the registered provider’s ability to effectively assess the quality of care being delivered and identify areas requiring further development.

The registered provider described plans to expand the service. However, there was limited evidence of strategic planning to support this growth, including workforce planning, governance arrangements, quality assurance processes, and risk management systems. As a result, we could not be assured that the registered provider had fully considered how the service would maintain safe, effective, and high-quality care as it developed and expanded.

The registered provider did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the importance of collaborative working and how effective partnerships support positive outcomes for people receiving care.

The service was not currently working in partnership with other agencies, healthcare professionals, community organisations, or stakeholders involved in people's care and support. The registered provider acknowledged that partnership working may be required as the service expanded and took on additional packages of care. However, they were unable to demonstrate how these relationships would be developed, maintained, or used to support people effectively. For example, the registered provider was unaware of local meetings and forums to help share knowledge and good practice amongst providers and registered managers and services.

As a result, we could not be assured that appropriate arrangements were in place to facilitate coordinated care, information sharing, or joint working with relevant partners. We also did not see evidence that the service shared learning, sought advice, or worked with external organisations to drive improvement and ensure people received seamless care.

This meant we were unable to gain assurance that leaders understood their responsibilities in relation to partnership working or had established effective processes to support integrated, person-centred care as the service developed.

Therefore, there was insufficient evidence available at the time of this assessment to enable a judgement or provide a score for this quality statement.

The provider 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.

Although the registered provider showed a willingness to improve, existing systems did not consistently identify learning and development opportunities. They had not established systems to learn from best practice and to make improvements to people’s care. Furthermore, there was no evidence of innovation or continuous improvement initiatives.