Rift Solutions Limited

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 and submission of required notifications.

This service scored 54 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Whilst the provider had a range of policies and procedures in place at the service; these were not always followed or effectively implemented. For example, medicines management and governance. The lack of oversight and ineffective monitoring placed people at risk of receiving poor care.

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. While there was some oversight of the service by the registered manager overall there was ineffective oversight and audit processes to drive improvements. Concerns identified during the assessment mostly related to quality assurance and oversight. The provider recognised this and was in the process of separating the service into two separate locations, one in Bradford and one in Leeds.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. People told us they did not always feel listened to. Some comments included “I find the office don’t answer the phone” and “I have mentioned to the office my issues and don’t feel they are very effective”. Staff told us they felt able to speak up and that the office staff and management team were approachable and listened to their concerns.

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. No concerns were identified in this area during our assessment. Staff told us that they felt supported and treated fairly by the provider. Staff told us there were opportunities for staff to progress and personal development opportunities were available.

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. Governance and oversight in the service was not robust. Management and leaders did not have appropriate oversight of the service, resulting in many of the shortfalls we identified on assessment not already being known by the registered manager. Some audits had been completed but were not robust or accurate in identifying issues and concerns found during our assessment. The provider had opened another location in Bradford and was running part of this service from the Leeds location. The provider had submitted a request to register the Bradford location with CQC however, this location was not yet registered with CQC.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. We received feedback from the local authority that improvement with timely reporting of safeguarding concerns was required, and responding fully to issues was also required.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. Some safety events were not thoroughly investigated by competent staff and monitored to make sure that action was taken to remedy the situation, prevent further occurrences and make sure that improvements were made as a result.