Riseup Healthcare Ltd

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 as 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 68 (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 told us that the manager was supportive, and the culture was positive, with an emphasis on delivering quality, person-centred care. One staff member told us, “I think they [management team] listen and encourage us to talk if there are any issues.” Processes were in place to monitor that quality was upheld within the service. The provider had conducted a people and staff survey to gain feedback on how the service was doing. There were no major issues raised on the survey, and there was a good rate of participation from people and their families.

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. However, while staff were generally positive about the management team, they told us that the managers sometimes did not show compassion around sickness absence. They told us that the managers were always available as needed for advice and guidance. One staff member told us, “They [management team] provide feedback and they are quick to respond, and your contribution is taken seriously without prejudice.

Most staff told us that they felt fairly treated, and that they were confident that where they raised concerns, these would be dealt with by the provider. They found the managers to be approachable and open to suggestions on improving the service. However, some staff did raise concerns regarding how they were spoken to when they called in sick, which made them feel anxious about approaching the provider when ill. We discussed this with the registered manager, who promised to review how they approached this issue.

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. Most staff told us the provider was fair and considerate. The provider had recruited overseas staff, and they told us that the provider had supported them to settle and be integrated within their community. The registered manager told us that they were one big family and encouraged and promoted cultural celebrations of both the people supported and the staff.

Staff had received training on the Equality Act 2010, and we saw that fair recruitment processes were in place. Processes were in place to support staff and their well-being. This included regular supervisions, appraisals, and staff meetings. Flexible working arrangements were in place for staff, and they told us the service was considerate of their personal circumstances when completing rotas and assigning work. Staff confirmed that with notice, swaps within their dedicated teams could be sorted.

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 provider operated a flexible call system which means a person’s morning call could fall any time within a couple of hours. While people received weekly timetables, we did not see that the provider had recorded peoples consent for this way of working. Staff told us the management team regularly completed competency and spot checks on them as a quality monitoring and auditing tool. One staff member said, “The manager often comes out to clients’ homes to assess our competency and offer support.”

The service had processes in place to monitor and improve the service. These included in related to the quality of the service delivered and regarding sustainability and workforce planning. For example, regular audits were conducted on aspects of the service, including care delivery and medicines administration, and staff’s competencies were regularly assessed. In

addition, the provider had employed an experienced care manager to coordinate the day-to-day care. The service also had a business continuity plan in place in the event of any adverse incidents and a service improvement plan, which set out its plans to drive further improvement.

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. People told us that the service worked well with other professionals and their families to ensure the received safe care. One person told us, “I would not have been discharged back to my house without Riseup Healthcare.” The registered manager told us how they worked with other professionals to ensure people received continuity of safe and effective care. We saw examples of where this had achieved a positive outcome for people who used the service. The service also sought people’s permission to discuss their care and support needs with other professionals at the start of service, so this could be completed as required, and to avoid any delay should the need arise. The professionals we spoke with told us the service worked well with them. They told us communication was effective and regular, and that the service was professional.

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. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. Staff told us that they received all the necessary training for their role, and that the management team was always sharing new learning and innovation when these came along. Staff had regular supervisions and annual appraisals. One staff member told us, “I find these [supervisions and appraisals] good as we can talk about any concerns we have about clients or how we are feeling with regards to work. We also do reflective practice on incidents.” The provider was in the process of transferring all care plans and management systems onto a more modern and user-friendly application, which would bring several elements of people’s care together.