Raynsford Domiciliary Care

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 remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
 

This service scored 71 (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 visions and values of the provider had been developed through open conversations with people, staff and professionals. The provider’s focus was based on learning and improving the quality of life for people. The director stated, “Raynsford Domiciliary Care vision is entirely focused on people’s needs. People are given choice about where they want to live and their support.” Managers and staff worked well together to ensure consistency of care and to deliver high quality and person-centred care.
 

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.

The provider had a strong and stable management team. Three registered managers had been employed to manage and have oversight of a small number of houses and the relevant service managers. They worked collaboratively with each other as well as taking on key roles, such as, being the designated safeguarding lead for the service. Staff were positive about the management team and their approach. They described the management team as approachable, professional, and friendly.

In 2021, Raynsford Domiciliary Care joined the City and County Healthcare Group (a national provider of community-based social and home care services). The director of Raynsford Domiciliary Care said they regularly met with the nominated individual of City and County Healthcare Group and provided monthly performance reports based on the overall performance of the service and any issues which had impacted people who used the service. The director explained this was an opportunity to share current and local challenges, share good practice and seek advice.

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

The service managers in each house encouraged an open culture which assisted people, their relatives and staff to raise concerns without fear of repercussions. People told us they could freely speak to staff or their key workers. Throughout our visits to each supported living house, we observed people openly engaging with staff and service managers and requesting support or sharing their concerns. People were listened to, and their concerns were respected. Staff provided people with reassurance and told them how they were going to manage 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.

Staff told us they felt valued. They told us the registered and service managers had provided them with support and recognised their individual challenges and diversities. The provider had adopted an approach which was inclusive and ensured staff voices were respected through relevant training and supervision.
 

The provider had systems of accountability and good governance. However, there was not always a consistent approach when acting on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider had various systems in place to monitor the service and drive improvement. A registered manager had been assigned to carry out regular audits of the service and overview the checks being completed within each house, which informed their action plan. We reviewed the monitoring checks within each house and found that whilst the service manager's checks had revealed some shortfalls within their own monitoring of medicine management and health and safety standards, these discrepancies did not always correspond with the findings of the provider's audits.

All accidents, incidents, and near misses were documented and addressed, but there was minimal recording of analysis completed to identify any emerging trends or patterns.

Systems to monitor staff mandatory and specialised training and supervision were in place and monitored by the service managers. The registered managers were aware the training matrixes required further development and monitoring to ensure all staff had received training relevant to their role and the house they worked in. Plans were in place to increase the range of staff competency assessments and to upskill senior staff who carried out supervisions to ensure they were effective and accurately recorded.

The registered managers had started to review their auditing systems to address our feedback. However, further time was needed to ensure the developments in the provider’s monitoring systems were fully embedded and sustained.

Management meetings were held regularly to review the results of the provider audits and reports from external monitoring agencies.

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 were supported to engage in their local communities. They told us they were supported to gain employment, volunteer and attend local groups. One person said they felt part of their local community and knew of events in their local area, such as, the dates of the farmer’s markets and local festivals. People were able to access local shopping facilities either independently or with support to purchase toiletries and other personal items.

Service managers in each house told us they had a good working relationship with health and social care partners and valued their input and recommendations.
 

The provider focused on 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 and effective practice

The provider recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure people continually received good quality safe care and support. There was a process of reporting accidents and incidents and near misses. The reports were reviewed by the registered managers to understand the incidents and any learning. Staff confirmed information about any lessons learned were always shared with them during individual and group supervision meetings and internal communication systems.

The provider was exploring the implementation of a central electronic care and data management system to improve the consistency of their care and governance records to enhance practices across the service and withing each house.