Maria Care Services

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 good governance.

This service scored 62 (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.

The aims and objectives for the organisation was to provide people with high-quality, person-centred care that met their individual needs, whilst promoting independence and enabling service users to remain in their own homes. To ensure care was provided with dignity, privacy, respect, and that gave people choice at all times. All people, relatives and staff felt the care and support provided was of a good standard. The culture of the organisation demonstrated the provider’s aims and objectives.

The registered manager and management for the service sought feedback from people. They provided staff with information through team meetings and through newsletters so they could provide the best care possible.

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.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and the provider’s management team. All staff felt able to raise any queries with the office or the registered manager if needed. They confirmed they could do this by visiting the office, calling them or raising a concern through the provider’s care planning system.

The provider had a positive culture where staff could raise concerns with them. Staff received newsletters, supervision and observed practice. They also attended team meetings, and all felt there was a positive culture where they could raise any concerns with the management or the registered manager if needed.

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.

The registered manager supported staff flexibly so they could attend church, charity work and family commitments. All staff felt able to visit the office and raise any queries with the registered manager or office staff if needed.

The provider did not have good governance arrangements to enable them to identify shortfalls to people’s care plans and associated documentation, the safe recruitment of staff and staff undertaking refresher training relevant to their role.

For example, the provider did not have an effective quality assurance system to review the quality of care plans and associated documentation. This meant they had failed to identify shortfalls where 2 people’s moving and handling information was not sufficient and where 1 person needed information on how to support them with their diet and any associated risks. Another person’s care plan had some best interest decisions, although not for all aspects of their care and support. We also found the provider had no governance arrangements to identify shortfalls where the recruitment of staff had not been undertaken in line with the provider’s policies and legal requirements and where some staff needed re-fresher training.

The provider was responsive during our inspection to taking action to improve people’s care planning information and schedule staff to attend any refresher training needed. They added other shortfalls found during our inspection to their action/improvement plan.

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 had their views sought through a mixture of care plan reviews and customer surveys. Where people had raised feedback, this was collated and actions identified. The registered manager and office staff liaised with other providers if required. They also undertook charitable projects to support people and the wider community. Examples included, organising dinners and gifts for those of a Christian faith, knitting blankets and other items for people and the community. Along with providing other charitable examples such as domestic support and purchasing items for people.

The provider had a positive culture within the organisation where they provided staff with 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.

All people we spoke to were happy with the care and support provided to them. All professionals felt the care and support was reliable and the provider delivered good care to people. Referrals were made to health and social care professionals when required. Although the provider had a positive culture to ensure any learning and actions were being undertaken, we found improvements could be made to the provider’s documentation and reporting systems of incidents and accidents. More information can be found within the quality statement of learning culture.