Brand 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 75 (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.

All feedback received assured us at its heart the service had an embedded positive culture. Everyone spoke highly of how the service was managed. One relative said, “Managers are fully involved with us, discuss things all the time and visit us regularly. Staff are warm and friendly and care about what they do.”

Staff were provided with regular supervisions and appraisals, access to additional training and reviews of their competencies. Staff spoke positively about their experience of working at the service and were complimentary of how managers supported them in their roles. One said, “The service is well-managed. Managers are involved with staff all the time and work together with us. In my view it is a nice service they provide to people which is their duty to do so. I would recommend it to others.”

The service complied with Equality Diversity and Human Rights Act 2010 (EDHR). The use of targeted recruitment of employees to match people’s request for care to be delivered by staff from similar backgrounds and culture as them was utilised. This met the specific needs people had requested for staff delivering their care which was lawful within the EDHR act.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to manage the service effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

All of the feedback we received assured us the registered manager delivered high quality person centred care. One person said, “The service is managed very professionally.” A staff member said, “This is a really good agency to work for.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People said they had no fear of speaking up if they needed to. One relative said, “I have no fear in raising concerns if I was unhappy with anything.”

Equally staff felt confident to speak up. One said, “Yes, I do have the freedom to speak up. I can speak to managers and seniors when I want to.”

Staff confirmed they had been trained in and how to ‘whistleblow’ and had access to the provider’s policy. They knew which key organisations they could contact to raise concerns if they felt managers were not taking these seriously.

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.

The registered manager was committed to treating the workforce fairly and inclusively. Feedback from staff assured us they were treated as equals.

Support was available from managers when they needed it which included, but was not limited to, matters relating to their personal lives which impacted their working arrangements. This included flexibility to attend appointments, balance caringresponsibilitiesand follow cultural and religious needs.

The registered manager took their roles and responsibilities seriously. Whilst Brand Care was a small service it was governed effectively and well-led.

Quality assurance processes were in place which included a range of audits. The registered manager recognised the importance of sustaining oversight of the service alongside their aim to expand it and increase capacity.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities regarding the duty of candour and the requirement to make statutory notifications to relevant bodies which is their legal responsibility to do so.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other services.

A relative told us about how the service was involved, as part of their care arrangements, with their family members GP and specialist clinician with staff supporting the person to these appointments. This collaborative approach ensured the persons health and social care needs were understood.

The registered manager focused on equality of experience, outcomes and quality of life for people. They welcomed feedback and engaged and worked alongside people to achieve this.

Staff were provided with ongoing refresher training which contributed to the continuous delivery of safe quality care. Staff were positive in their feedback about managers. They told us they were afforded enough time to complete training and had been shadowed by experienced staff until they were assessed as competent to undertake their role independently.

We were satisfied with the registered manager’s approach to learning and improvement. They were receptive in their response to our observations and feedback. This was evidenced by improvements to the service user guide were made during the assessment to include all agencies people could contact should they have concerns about quality of care.