Catto Homecare

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, 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.

Although there had been concerns previously regarding the culture at the service, the registered manager and staff team had worked hard for this to be improved to best support people that lived at the service. The management team was visible in the service, approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff, relatives and professionals had to say.

The management team worked hard to instil a culture of care in which staff were valued and promoted people’s individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to thrive. The registered manager set a culture that valued reflection, learning and improvement. Staff knew people well and spoke knowledgeably about the people they supported.

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 management team were welcoming and demonstrated an open and transparent approach. Evidence of team meetings was reviewed and identified that staff had the opportunity to raise concerns. Staff told us they felt listened to by the management team. A member of staff said, “I’m confident in communication between office staff and staff in the field and feel listened to whenever I raise a concern.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People told us when they raised a concern, staff listened to them. People told us the registered manager was approachable and regularly available throughout the day

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.

Staff told us they were fairly treated and had never witnessed discrimination or inequality within the service by the registered manager and the deputy manager. Staff described a diverse team who respected and supported each other.

The registered manager and the provider did not have effective governance system to identify issues we found during this assessment and that are described throughout the report.

The provider did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The registered manager did not always monitor recruitment checks were carried out to ensure all required information was gathered to ensure there were suitable staff to work with people. We identified gaps in oversight of the required training which led to inconsistencies in learning, compliance, and skill development. Where we found issues with medicines management, this was not always identified during quality assurance checks. For example, oversight of medicines administration, PRN protocols and reviews of those and related records to ensure people received correct medicines.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information with partners and collaborated for improvement. Staff worked closely with the local support networks and health professionals including the GP and physiotherapists who visited people regularly. There were regular reviews of people’s health and social care needs by community-based professionals.

The registered manager and the provider did not always have a clear process to focus on continuous learning and improvement from recorded events, audits and information across the organisation and local system. The registered manager gathered feedback from people and relatives, however they did not always analyse responses to determine where any changes or improvements were required. Surveys were not completed for staff and professionals which could be used to support service development. Whilst we did identify shortfalls during this assessment, the registered manager was responsive to our findings and acted on key areas of improvement.