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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires 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 governance.

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.

Whilst the provider had a clear shared vision, strategy, and culture in place, based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement, we could not be assured this had always been met. This was due to the shortfalls identified at this assessment including the provider’s failure to sometimes share concerns with other stakeholders including CQC.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, and/or experience to lead effectively. Whilst the management team showed care, empathy, and kindness towards the people who used the service, their relatives, and their staff, they could not fully demonstrate they had the knowledge to meet regulations and legislation. This was shown by their lack of understanding in relation to events reportable to CQC, shortfalls in the care plans and risk assessments, and lack of knowledge of their own policies and procedures.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The people who used the service, their relatives, and staff, told us that. One person said, “The service is always ready to listen to me. It’s good to be able to give feedback to them although their staff deserve nothing but praise, nothing is too much trouble for them, and they go out of their way if I need something extra.” Staff agreed the culture was positive allowing them to speak up without fear. One staff member told us, “What I value most is that I always feel heard and respected. Even when changes are difficult to make, management take the time to explain the situation and work with staff to find the best possible solution. Their communication is open, professional, and supportive.”

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. Staff told us they were treated well at work, felt cared for, listened to, and included. One staff member said, “Everyone welcomed me warmly and made me feel part of the team.”

The provider had established clear roles and responsibilities. However, systems of accountability and governance required improvement. For example, evidence showed the registered manager did not understand their regulatory responsibilities and the accountability that came with that. We found throughout this inspection that they relied too heavily on the knowledge of the care manager. Furthermore, the governance systems the provider had in place had failed to identify and rectify the shortfalls found at this inspection.

Whilst the provider shared risk information with others when appropriate, they did not consistently act on information about risk. This was evident from the records we viewed. For example, despite the provider’s own policy stating all people who used the service would be assessed for falls risk, and that this would be reviewed following each fall, this had not been completed consistently.

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. We saw evidence of this. One professional told us, “We have worked closely together to support individuals, and I have found the service to be cooperative and solution focused. The management team have attended key meetings and contributed meaningfully to discussions and safety planning.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. For example, despite CQC identifying, at the last inspection completed in July 2025, that the provider had failed to report some events to CQC as required, this shortfall continued at this inspection. Furthermore, the provider had not always actively contributed to safe, effective practice. For example, whilst the provider had identified some risks to people, they had failed to formally record, mitigate, manage, and review these.