Scodef Care

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 was the first inspection for the service. This key question has been rated require 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 relation to governance at the service.

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.

Leaders promoted a shared ethos focused on supporting people respectfully, and staff described a positive and inclusive culture. Staff consistently told us, “The culture is great; we all respect each other” and “The management is approachable.” People and relatives also described helpful and supportive staff.

However, although values were understood, these were not always embedded into consistent practice because care records lacked detail to guide staff, meaning the service’s intended culture was not fully assured in practice.

Leaders were visible and supportive, and staff described the registered manager as responsive and compassionate. A member of staff said, “[They] respond whenever you need [their] attention, no matter the time of day.” Leadership training and supervision arrangements were in place, and staff felt able to seek advice.

Despite these strengths, leaders did not always ensure systems were effective. Gaps in recruitment files had not been identified, and care records were not consistently reviewed or updated. This demonstrated limitations in leadership oversight. Following our inspection feedback, the provider took action and audited staff files to ensure all the identified shortfalls were met.

Staff understood how to raise concerns and felt comfortable doing so. Comments included, “[Management]always encourage us to raise our voices, and they always listen,” and staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy. Team members described a safe culture where issues could be discussed openly during meetings.

The service promoted equality and inclusion within the workforce. Staff described being treated fairly and supported, with one stating, “The culture is lovely… everyone is treated fairly and equally.”
Managers made reasonable adjustments where required and staff felt valued and respected. Training in equality and diversity was routinely completed.

Governance systems were not consistently effective. Risk assessments and care plans did not consistently reflect people’s needs or the care being delivered. People’s essential assessments, such as nutrition, elimination, pressure care or PEG/NG guidance were incomplete, inconsistent or missing. Staff reported contradictions in information, and leaders confirmed some records were overdue for review. Following our inspection feedback, the provider took action to strengthen governance processes including a monthly care plans audit and a governance audit.

Where updates were completed, they were not always accurate or aligned with daily practice. Recruitment files showed unexplained gaps in employment history and missing or conflicting employment dates. These issues demonstrated a lack of robust oversight, meaning risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had not been consistently assessed or mitigated. Following our inspection feedback, the provider took action and audited staff files and strengthened governance processes to ensure all the identified shortfalls were met.
 

The service worked positively with families and external professionals. Staff described cooperative relationships with district nurses, hospitals and social workers. The provider had also developed community initiatives such as a weekly soup kitchen attended by 24 people,demonstrating a commitment to local social responsibility.

Leaders completed audits of medicines, notes,call monitoring punctuality and spot checks; however, these did not identify significant gaps in care records or risk assessments. Despite monthly audits, contradictory or incomplete information remained across people’s records reducing the opportunities for learning.

Although staff told us they received regular training and valued learning opportunities, the organisation did not demonstrate systematic learning from incidents or audit findings. Improvements were reactive rather than proactively driven by robust quality assurance.