Nationwide Care Services Ltd (Dudley)

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 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 promoted a shared culture which was based on engagement with people and relatives in order to meet the needs of people.

Leaders worked with people, relatives and staff to create an inclusive culture. There were complaints and equality and diversity policy in place, staff completed training in both these areas and told us they were able to speak to leaders should they have concerns.

People and relatives told us staff consulted with them about the care people received, that they felt able to raise concerns with the provider and were confident leaders would take appropriate action.

Staff meetings were held by the leaders, which reinforced the values and expectations of the service.

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 mostly understood the service they managed and promoted an inclusive culture. They safeguarded people and ensured care records mostly contained relevant information about people's needs and preferences. Leaders sought feedback from people and relatives. They demonstrated an awareness of the principles of 'Right support, right care, right culture'.

The provider did not consistently review accidents and incidents for understanding and learning, nor obtain and check staff applicants' full employment histories. Most of the care plans we viewed did not record people’s longer-term wishes and preferences, and the provider did not consistently supply all the information requested during the assessment as requested.

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

Leaders actively sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. The provider promoted a culture where concerns were raised and acted on.

Staff understood how to raise issues, including supervisions, meetings, surveys and day-to-day communication. Leaders told us staff were aware of the importance of and process for raising concerns. Staff we spoke with did not tell us they had any issues in raising concerns and they were confident concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon by the provider.

People and their relatives told us they received safe care from staff, and they had no concerns issues would not be taken seriously and acted upon by the provider.

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 provider informed us they valued a diverse workforce which they treated fairly. Staff supported this by telling us they were happy working with the provider and felt they were treated fairly.

There were processes in place to consider staff members’ individual needs, such as supervisions and team meetings.

The provider had clear systems of good governance.

The provider supported people to move safely into the service. Staff documented and leaders mostly reviewed safety events. Besides failing to consistently detail people’s longer-term wishes and preferences, the care plans and risk assessments we viewed contained required information about people’s needs and risks and staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s needs. Systems were effective in ensuring the adequate application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and people and relatives were consulted regarding people’s care.

Governance systems did not ensure the provider always consistently reviewed incidents in which people experienced harm, nor that they obtained and checked staff applicants’ full employment histories. Most care plans we viewed did not reflect people’s longer-term wishes and preferences. The provider did not consistently supply all required information as requested during the assessment. For example, we asked the provider for information to demonstrate they were reviewing accidents and incidents. However, this information was not provided as requested, this meant we could not be assured all accidents and incidents were reviewed in a timely manner.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

Leaders were aware of what partners and stakeholders were available to the service and how to share information and access this support. For example, when accidents and incidents occurred, where this was appropriate, information was reported to healthcare professionals.

Staff supported people to integrate within their local communities and the provider communicated with the professionals involved in people's care.

The provider had an awareness of learning and improvement across aspects of the organisation and local system.

Leaders mostly understood how audits and governance process could identify concerns, reduce risks and support improvement. For example, people’s experiences were sought and reviewed, most care plans and risk assessments contained relevant information about their needs and preferences, and staff had completed training relevant to people’s needs.

The provider did not always use audits and governance processes effectively to identify and address shortfalls. These included accidents and incidents not always being consistently reviewed, gaps in staff employment history checks, longer-term care planning and the timely provision of requested information during the assessment.