Senacare Ltd

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.

This service scored 68 (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.

Staff told us management promoted a positive culture of learning and development at the service. They said they felt listened too, valued and there were opportunities to develop their professional skills. Management promoted a no blame culture, where they encouraged staff to be reflective about their practice and open to feedback about how they could improve. Staff were aligned with the provider’s values and were consistently positive and enthusiastic about their roles. They told us they were afforded frequent opportunities to give feedback and management were open to their suggestions about how to improve the quality of care.

The registered manager was experienced and had worked at the service since 2021. Staff told us the registered manager was knowledgeable and provided them with the support they needed to do their job effectively. A member of staff said, “[Management] are always there to help. Good management. I like the manager. [They] are approachable and really does help staff. [They] always give good advice and always helpful. [They] are knowledgeable. I personally like [them] very much.”

Despite positive feedback from staff, this assessment found that management did not always demonstrate clear insight into issues affecting the quality of the service. Whilst the management team completed regular audits and checks on the service, these did not always identify issues, concerns or priorities for the quality of the service.

There was open communication between management and staff. Regular meetings and effective communication between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss people’s individual support needs and the running of the service.

There was an organisational structure in place and staff understood their roles, responsibilities and contributions to the service.

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

Speaking up procedures were in place and accessible to staff. The registered manager operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff.

Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up.

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.

Management were sensitive and responsive to staff’s individual circumstances. This helped to ensure reasonable adjustments were made to accommodate staff’s needs.

A member of staff told us, “The manager is extremely supportive. They let me work around my schedule. They give me flexibility and give me freedom to care for [my family member] who has [health implications].”

Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. These were implemented through recruitment practices, training, and support for staff.

Governance processes were in place. Audits and checks were carried out consistently. Audits included monthly checks as well as an electronic monitoring system which enabled the service to monitor in real time.

We found that some checks and audits had failed to identify issues we found in respect of risk assessments and the completion of MARs. Some audits contained limited information and sometimes lacked detail about lessons learnt.

We raised this with management who responded positively to our feedback and told us they would review and amend audits to ensure they were all effective at clearly identifying shortfalls and detailing lessons learnt.

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. The provider told us they worked with a range of other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care.

Management looked for ways to improve the running of the service and the quality of care people received. Systems were in place to seek feedback from people, relatives and staff. People and relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback through meetings, telephone monitoring, surveys and quality assurance checks. A relative said, “Someone from the office rings from time to time and they also do spot checks – dropping in from time to time.”

Management then analysed the feedback in order to make positive changes.

The culture within the service promoted honesty and learning from mistakes and there was a clear understanding of the need to be open in the event of anything going wrong.