Akos Care 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. This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated 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 at the service.

This service scored 57 (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 mission statement outlining the service’s vision and values. Staff reported that there had been a culture of collaboration, where they felt listened to and open communication had been encouraged. Staff told us, ‘‘Yes, the culture of the organisation is very fair and supportive”, and ‘‘Yes, I think the organisation is fair and open.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support. A person using the service reported that senior leaders were not consistently visible or accessible to support their needs. This meant that opportunities to address concerns promptly and provide timely guidance or reassurance were sometimes missed.
However, staff reported that they felt supported when issues affecting their health and wellbeing arose, as leaders responded promptly. For example, following an incident or accident, they were able to speak with a senior member of staff who provided guidance and emotional support.
 

Leaders were open to feedback, and staff told us they felt supported to speak up. Staff confirmed that they understood the term ‘freedom to speak up’ and reported a positive culture in which they felt able to speak up. Policies were in place in line with best practice guidance relating to freedom to speak up, whistleblowing, and complaints.

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 had access to equality training to help them understand protected characteristics, bullying and harassment. There are policies in place and in-line with current best practice guidance around equality and diversity of the workforce.

The provider did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. For example, the provider’s governance systems for auditing the service were not effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement to ensure that people were not placed at risk of receiving unsafe and inappropriate care.
The systems to ensure people always received their medicines safely were not effective, as we identified shortfalls with the way the provider was managing people’s medicines, which placed people at risk of unsafe care.
The provider’s systems to ensure staff were appropriately trained and supported were not effective. Some members of staff had not received mandatory and refresher training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people safely.
There was no effective system of record keeping in place. Care plans and risk assessments were not consistently updated to reflect changes in people’s health and medicine needs, which may impact the quality and continuity of care.
However, the provider had a business continuity plan in place to help ensure the service could continue running during and after any significant disruptions.
 

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information with relevant agencies and health care professionals to support service improvement and achieve better outcomes for people. For example, updates regarding changes in people’s needs were not routinely communicated to external healthcare professionals, limiting effective partnership working and opportunities for coordinated care.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. For example, following safety events, action plans were not always sufficiently robust, and there was no clear approach to monitoring and evaluating the impact of changes in practice.