Rapid Improvement Care Agency

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. This meant the service 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 61 (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.

Staff were supported by their line managers and supervisors to deliver personal care and support to people living at home in line with the provider’s values and culture. A member of staff told us, “The culture here is excellent because we have such good teamwork and supportive colleagues we are able to make a positive difference to people we support. We put people at the heart of everything we do here at Rapid Improvement.” Systems and processes had been designed in line with this vision and focused on people and meeting their individual needs. The managers routinely used individual and group meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles.

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.

The registered manager and the senior staff team based in the provider’s offices had appropriate expertise and experience, supported staff well and ensured care delivery met professional standards. They promoted inclusivity and openness, ensuring staff felt comfortable raising concerns or seeking advice. The registered managers leadership style was a supportive one that promoted transparency and staff wellbeing. Staff confirmed this approach, noting they always felt able to speak openly with the office based managers and senior staff team and voice their ideas and views. One staff member told us, “The managers are very approachable and easy to contact if you have a problem.” The people receiving care and their relatives also expressed confidence in the office-based managers and senior staff team.

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

People expressed feeling able to raise any concerns they might have about the provider and were confident their views would be taken seriously and acted upon. There was an accessible complaints and staff whistleblowing procedures in place, which set out clear expectations for how concerns should be reported and dealt with by the provider.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair culture which had improved equality and equity for people who work for them.

The provider supported staff fairly and promoted an inclusive working environment. Policies reflected equality and diversity principles, and managers ensured staff needs were understood and accommodated. Staff reported feeling valued and treated fairly. A member of staff told us, “I do feel respected by my employee.” Staff had opportunities for career progression, were offered flexible work options and the staff teams diverse cultural and religious needs and wishes were taken into account and respected. Staff were also supported through relevant training and supervision to inform their knowledge and understanding of equality, inclusivity and fairness in the workplace.

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 had established governance systems in place. They regularly undertook a range of quality monitoring tasks including, gathering people’s views and experiences of receiving a supported living service from them and conducting regular spot checks to observe staffs working practices and audits on medicines management and infection control. A member of staff told us, “Managers regularly visit us while we are working to check we are doing a good job and to make sure everything runs smoothly.”

However, the provider did not ensure these systems were always operated effectively. The office-based managers and senior staff team did not have formal mechanisms in place to routinely analyse or discuss the outcome of the audits and checks or feedback they had received from people which adversely affected how they identified performance shortfalls. A community-based care professional told us, “There is a lack of audits and management oversight of the service.”

In addition, the provider had failed to identify and/or address multiple issues we identified at this assessment in relation to the safe management of medicines, staff recruitment and training, end of life care, reporting notifiable incidents, record keeping and access, and analysing the outcome of audits and feedback to develop action plans to drive improvement.

Records the provider is legally required to keep were not always easily accessible and made available without delay on request. Records for people receiving a supported living service could not always be assessed in a timely manner, despite the assessment being announced.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

Feedback we received from community-based care professionals in relation to working in partnership with the provider was mixed. Comments included, “We have a good working relationship with the provider”, “The provider does not always follow our guidance we share with them about how best to look after our client” and “They [the provider] are often slow to resolve issues we bring to their attention. They have also been slow to share evidence with us to show us what steps they have taken to improve and learn lessons when we have identified issues”.

We discussed this issue with the registered manager at the time of our assessment who agreed to review and improve how they collaborated with community-based care professionals to improve, and share information and learning.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Systems were in place to review performance, identify learning opportunities and adapt practice. The provider also demonstrated willingness to innovate and develop their service and systems.

However, the provider did not routinely analyse and review the outcome of the audits and checks they conducted or feedback they received which meant they missed opportunities to identify performance shortfalls, continuously learn lessons and improve. In addition, when things had gone wrong and lessons needed to be learnt, the provider had not always identified issues quickly or implemented their own action plans they had developed to address any identified issues and improve.

We discussed this issue with the registered manager at the time of our assessment who agreed to review how they analysed and response to the outcome of audits, checks and feedback, and developed action plans to improve.