George Springall Homecare Partnership

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant the oversight from the management and leadership was inconsistent and did not always support the delivery of high-quality and person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 62 (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 service’s statement of purpose outlined their vision and core values along with their aims and objectives. Staff told us, “The managers promote communication and unity and if there are any concerns, raise them” and “Our values, we take this seriously and work as a family.” The registered manager told us they invest in their staff to improve care and the business grows if staff are happy.

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 registered manager invested in their professional development. This was confirmed with feedback received from staff. Staff told us, “Our leaders are continuously developing their skills through professional development opportunities” and “The managers are professionals; they don’t want their clients’ needs not met.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us, “They encourage us to speak up. We can say anything to them and ring them anytime” and “It’s great, they (managers) are always there and ready to access.”

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 service had an equality and diversity policy. Staff told us they were respected and said, “We are a team of different cultures and we are treated as a family.”

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. Whilst we recognised the registered manager monitored and audited elements of the service we did not always see any analysis of the audit which would allow and help the service to improve. For example, medicine records were audited for completion for individual people but there was no analysis carried out to look for themes and trends to mitigate potential risk. When we discussed this with the registered manager, they agreed more could be done to, “Make better use of the information available.” The providers governance systems had not identified people’s care plans contained inconsistent information and not enough instructions for staff to mitigate the likelihood of harm.

At the time of the inspection we were not assured the service had effective monitoring in place to support oversight and governance. We found the provider had not notified CQC of all notifiable incidents to ensure external scrutiny of the service. We discussed this with the registered manager and requested they send these in retrospectively. We signposted them to the regulations and the registered manager responded positively.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. We received positive feedback from professionals. We were told, “I value [registered manager] as a partner in care in providing appropriate, high quality care,” and “It is always a source of reassurance to my team and me when we know that George Springall is supporting one of our patients.”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. The provider had a range of policies and procedures. A staff member told us, “They said that if I think there is anything that could be improved to tell them. We are encouraged by them to make suggestions.” Another member of staff told us, “We actively listen to feedback and continuously work to improve our services to meet the highest standards of care and respect.” The registered manager told us they were investing in a new electronic recording system to support better oversight of the service.