Dell 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 feedback provided by people, staff, and professionals demonstrated the service worked to appropriate principles of care and the aims and objectives of the provider. For example, people’s relatives consistently told us about a positive culture of kindness and compassion that placed their family members in control of the care they received. One staff member said, “I believe Dell Care provides a good quality service. [People who use the service] are valued and respected. If they raise concerns, they are addressed.”

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. We received consistently positive feedback about the registered manager. People, staff, and professionals told us the registered manager demonstrated professionalism and accountability and communicated well with them with the aim of ensuring people received good quality care. One professional said, “[Registered manager] is very approachable and will often speak with me. We have a very good collaborative working relationship which supports [the person who uses the service].”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People’s relatives, professionals, and staff, told us they would feel comfortable speaking up including in relation to raising concerns. They told us they felt they would be listened to and taken seriously. We saw there were associated policies in place and that people were given the opportunity to raise any issues or suggestions at regular care plan reviews.

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 raised no concerns in how they were treated and told us all staff, and the provider, worked as a supportive team. For example, one staff member said, “The [registered] manager treats everyone fairly. If complaints arise either from the people who use the service, or staff, they address everyone involved and things are resolved amicably.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, and systems of accountability. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment, and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. However, we found improvements were required in some areas of governance. Whilst the registered manager had good oversight of the care being delivered which meant people received consistently effective and kindly care, records were not always robust or accurate and the systems in place had failed to rectify this promptly. This was raised with the registered manager who acknowledged this shortfall and provided us with assurances of what action they would take in response.

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. We saw examples of this and the professionals who provided us with feedback spoke positively about how the service worked with them for the benefit of people using the service. One professional told us the service communicated well with them, had been accommodating and understanding when providing a service and that their experience of working with the service had been ‘very positive’.

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 registered manager, and staff, demonstrated they were passionate about delivering a good quality service that met, or exceeded, people’s needs and expectations; people’s relatives agreed, with all recommending the service. One relative said, “This company, from the registered manager to the carers, are phenomenal. They respond immediately in a positive way to everything I ask of them.” Another relative told us, “It’s a small caring company and it does what it says it’s going to do.”