Archangel Home 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.

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.

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 led a service which had a positive and inclusive 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 understood how their role contributed to good outcomes for people using the service. Most staff told us they were asked for ideas and feedback in different ways including supervision sessions, team meetings, by email and written feedback which could be left anonymously at the office. As a result of this feedback, changes had been made, for example, people’s support plans were developed.

There was a culture of continuous learning. Staff told us they received a good induction, and we saw evidence through training records that staff were provided with regular learning, which included equality and diversity training.

Documents reviewed showed a shared vision, strategy and culture. The values recorded in the Statement of Purpose were demonstrated by the action of leaders and staff. The equality and diversity policy contained details to guide leaders and staff on how to implement the principles through all aspect of their work.

The provider 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 manager led by example, modelling inclusive behaviours, open and cooperative relationships. We heard about the positive relationship between management and staff. One staff member said, “Management is very approachable.”

As required, there is a registered manager in post. They understood their responsibilities and were supported by the provider and other managers to deliver good, effective, high-quality care. Recruitment of staff was managed by another division of the provider, external to this location. The manager shared details about the people who required support, and recruitment then reflected those needs. However, there was no evidence people who used the service were involved in the recruitment of leaders for the home care service.

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

Leaders were open to feedback and staff felt supported to speak up. All staff were confident that their voices would be heard. One staff member told us about the leadership, “I believe that my concerns would be handled quickly and effectively.”

Staff were aware of the process of whistleblowing, which enabled them to raise concerns about unsafe, unethical or poor practice without fear of reprisal. Staff were aware of how to escalate concerns both internally and externally, including to the Care Quality Commission.

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.

Leadership knowledge of staff and people ensured the best outcomes for all. Where protected characteristics meant staff preference was to work with certain people, this was respected, but not at the cost of care. One staff member told us about the leadership, “They know (people) and staff extremely well which helps them provide the best care to (people).”

The provider did not always demonstrate good governance as they did not always act on information effectively to monitor and improve the quality of care.

Insufficient oversight of the service meant some risks had not been removed. When external organisations reviewed documents and identified areas for improvement, evidence showed these changes had not been carried out. The manager stated the actions had been completed, but this showed they had not checked or followed up on the recommendations themselves.

Leaders reviewed the quality of care completed and people’s records to identify where improvements could be made. However, where possible improvements were identified action was not always taken. This was seen in several different reviews including daily records, monitoring visits and care plans.

Leaders were not always aware of the company documents which guided the support they and their staff provided. Whilst there appeared to be no impact on staff or the people supported, knowledge of the guidance by managers was lacking. This included some policies and availability of easy-read documents for people.

Data and notifications were not always submitted to external organisations as required. However, when this was shared with the management, this was quickly resolved, demonstrating the managements drive to improve.

There were robust plans in place for business continuity in case of emergency or natural disasters, such as adverse weather events.

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.

Leaders identified ways to improve people’s lives and worked with other organisations to achieve this. The service was considered a valued partner by other professionals involved in people’s care and the outcomes were reflected on positively. People and professionals told us transitions between services were successfully achieved, this was due to partnership working.

Community knowledge improved people’s care. Staff and leaders supported people and to access and engage with their local community.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

Learning was shared to improve service delivery across the organisation. Archangel Home Care was made up of different divisions, and lessons learned had been shared across these to provide better outcomes for people. However, wider contribution to safe and effective practice and research was not evidenced.