Hope Care Agency

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 Requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We identified a breach of the regulation for good governance. This was because the provider’s governance systems and audits were not effective in identifying issues that needed improvement to help ensure people were not placed at risk of receiving unsafe and inappropriate care.

We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had systems in place for carrying out audits, spot checks and supervisions and they compiled action plans from these. However, the governance systems and audits were not effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement to ensure that people were not placed at risk of receiving unsafe and inappropriate care.

The provider’s systems to ensure staff were appropriately trained and supported were not effective. This was because staff had not always received training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people safely.

The provider’s systems to identify and manage risks were also not effective, as they had not always identified all the risks people faced while receiving care and they had not always put effective risk management plans in place to address identified risks.

The systems to ensure people always received their medicines safely were not effective, as we identified shortfalls with the way the provider was managing people’s medicines, which placed people at risk of unsafe care.

There was no effective system in place for reporting safeguarding incidents to the CQC following an investigation with the Local Authority.

The provider had a business continuity plan in place to help ensure the service could continue running during and after any significant disruptions.
 

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.