The Private Care Company

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 managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted good care.

This service scored 64 (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 provider had clear visions and values, set out in their statement of purpose. This was shared with people and relatives in their “Care Guide for clients” booklet the provider had produced. Staff had information on the provider’s vision and values in their handbooks. Induction, training and supervisions ensured staff were reminded of their core purpose and supported them to continue achieving it. Leader’s spoke of incentives available to staff which rewarded good practice and personal development. They shared positive feedback from people, relatives and external partners with staff. The registered manager said, “We do a newsletter and feature clients and staff in it. One time I took my puppy around to see a client who loved dogs and had one years ago. [They] absolutely loved it and that featured it in the newsletter. We also have the OSCAs award for carers in it.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had defined roles, responsibilities and structured working practices. However, this was not always effective. There were some gaps in processes and oversight which were identified during this assessment. Leaders were open to feedback and took actions to make improvements. This included adding additional quality assurance tasks to their existing tools. This will take time to fully embed in practice.

Feedback from people, relatives and staff showed mixed experiences of management. Some commented positively about leaders being approachable, accessible and friendly. Others felt leaders were not always compassionate or flexible and focused on business processes. For example, staff said they could only access the office at a specific time during weekdays. They had to make appointments to see leaders outside of this time. A staff member said, “It can be quite a formal company to work for. There is no ethos to just pop in and have a chat if something has been bothering you or worrying you. Everything is done by email or phone. The only time to really warrant going into office is for PPE or an issue you need to discuss. I appreciate it is a pressurised service and a small team but sometimes it feels isolating.” Following our feedback, leaders undertook a staff survey. Whilst staff felt they had enough opportunities to raise concerns through email, phone calls or supervisions, almost half the staff team felt they would benefit from a regular face to face meeting with a manager. The registered manager told us they would be reviewing current processes to ensure it worked effectively for everyone.

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

Leaders sought people’s views about their experiences of the service through spot checks, reviews and surveys. Information about how to speak up, including safeguarding contacts were available to people and staff. The provider had a whistle-blowing policy in place. Staff were aware of this and how to raise any concerns if they needed to.

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 open and inclusive recruitment procedure. Policies and procedures supported diversity and inclusion within the service. Staff had received equality and diversity training. The provider made reasonable adjustments to meet individual circumstances, including adapting training methods so staff could complete required learning. Reasonable adjustments were also made for staff with health or medical needs.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider did not always have effective governance. Whilst it had not impacted the safety of people, the provider needed to strengthen some processes and oversight. This included care plans, daily care notes, risk assessments and quality monitoring systems such as audits. The registered manager said, “Once we have implemented the Policies and Procedures, I am looking to implement the Care Compliance area on the online system and so we should be able to run more formal monthly reports. I think that this would be an improvement by way of overall audits and being able to run better reports.” Leaders had not identified all of the issues we found during this assessment. However, following our feedback they started implementing additional quality assurance checks and reviewing processes to ensure they were effective. This will take time to fully embed in practice.

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.

Leaders told us about their partnership working with local health and social care teams. Staff and leaders understood how to seek support from them when required. Partners shared positive feedback about staff and leaders. A professional said, “All my experience with The Private Care Company has been positive.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider did not identify all of the shortfalls found during this inspection. However, they accepted the feedback provided and started making changes in order to learn and improve. Improvements would take time to fully embed in practice.

Staff were encouraged to develop their skills so they could take on more senior roles to support and train other staff. The registered manager told us about a new process they were implementing to make it easier for staff to access the provider’s policies and procedure. They said, “We have just bought into a new system which we will put all of our policies and guidance onto. Currently, staff have to carry around their employee handbook all the time. This system will be up and running soon and will so much easier for staff to access.” Leaders told us they had links with various health and social care forums to help keep them up to date and share learning and good practice.