Future Care Enable 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly 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 the governance at the service.

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.

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 provider had a shared culture. The registered manager and staff worked collaboratively with relevant health and social care services to ensure delivery of care. A clear management structure was in place. Staff had clear roles and responsibilities and were informed of their roles and reporting arrangements. Staff spoke positively about the management of the service. A staff member told us, “I have regular supervision and contact with the manager, we have regular team meetings to talk about the service.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Processes were not effectively implemented to help make sure the service was led in an effective manner by staff who were capable in their job roles. The provider could not be confident the processes they had in place for monitoring and improving the quality of the service were used effectively. We identified areas of concern during this assessment. These had not been identified by the management and leadership within the service.

We received positive feedback about the compassion and inclusivity of the leadership of the service. People and staff told us the registered manager was approachable and they felt listened to.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they knew how to speak-up if they had concerns or something went wrong. They felt the registered manager supported them and listened to them. Staff were able to discuss any concerns in the service at supervision meetings and team meetings.

People and relatives were able to approach staff and the registered manager if they had any concerns. One person said, “It’s well run, we have no problems, I get on well with [registered manager] and would have no hesitation in telling her any problems.”

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.

Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion to enable a more equitable and inclusive organisation.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider acknowledged that improvements needed to be made to the oversight and governance of the service. However, insufficient action had been taken to maintain appropriate standards at the service.

There was poor governance and a lack of ongoing monitoring of care documentation and medicines. People's care plans, risk assessments and medicines records contained inaccurate and incomplete information about people's needs. There was a risk people would not receive appropriate care.

There was a lack of oversight of recruitment procedures and records; recruitment records were incomplete.

Audits lacked detail, for example the call monitoring audit for November 2025 all entries stated everything was ‘fine’ or ‘perfect’ or ‘nothing’. There was no information as to what the call monitoring was measured against.

Although quality surveys were in place, no action was taken in response to the feedback people provided. For example, in the most recent survey, one person fed back staff did not always arrive at the time expected, they were not always informed when staff were running late and staff did not always complete the tasks expected. There was no record of any analysis of the survey or action taken in response to this feedback.

Policies and procedures contained outdated information, for example they still referred to the key lines of enquiry, which were replaced in 2024 by CQC’s new assessment framework and quality statements. The Supervision and Appraisal policy still referred to the Common Induction Standards, this was replaced by a new framework for induction; the Care Certificate in 2015. The failure to have appropriate policies in place increased the risk of the service not being managed appropriately.

Staff told us they were supported by the provider and systems were in place for the management and oversight of the service. However, during this assessment, we identified that systems of oversight were not being implemented effectively and there were concerns within the service. These had not been identified or acted upon in a timely manner. Failure to maintain oversight of quality monitoring processes placed people at risk of receiving poor care.

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.

The service was small, so there had been limited opportunity for partnership working, but when needed the provider had contacted other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care.

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.

At the time of assessment, we found several areas of concern in the service that had either not been identified or addressed. Processes were not implemented effectively to enable a consistently good service to be provided to people and improvements had not been made where required. Audits were not effective in identifying where improvements needed to be made and the service was not meeting the fundamental standards we expect from care services.

Although the registered manager took action to make improvements in response to our feedback following this assessment, we cannot be assured these improvements will be sustained and embedded.