ICare (GB) Limited - Runcorn

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 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 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.

This service scored 61 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. Although the provider worked with the staff team to build open and transparent relationships, we found people and their loved ones had not been provided with clear information on how to raise suggestions and concerns about the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders 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 and knowledge and to lead effectively with integrity and honesty.

People did not always feel they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People and their loved ones told us, “This whole business of having to make complaints constantly and nothing has been addressed has caused me so much anxiety and frustration” , “I have repeatedly contacted the manager to complain about numerous issues and still nothing has been resolved” and “The company are very slow to respond to complaints and put an action plan in place to improve.” We did see improvements in how the management team were responding to complaints. Staff were encouraged to share their views during team meetings, supervisions and staff surveys.

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 had received equality training, and most felt they were treated fairly and equally. Staff had made requests and held discussions identifying areas of work where they required additional support or adjustments. The manager told us they would always endeavour to provide support where required.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. We found quality assurance audits had not been consistent or effective over a sustained period with an inconsistent approach to quality monitoring and governance resulting in poor oversight of care and support. The provider had developed new governance documents and procedures which required more time to be embedded, and we saw these were working as the provider had highlighted similar concerns we found during this assessment. The provider now had systems and processes in place to manage the quality of the service. We saw the management team and the nominated individual worked well together and were determined to improve the service following the recent shortfall in quality.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Although we had a small sample of feedback from partners, they did confirm the provider worked with them to develop and improve the care for people.

The provider had not always focused 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. Audits did not always highlight recurring themes or trends, and there were no proactive plans in place to mitigate risks to people's wellbeing. The provider had recognised their governance systems needed to be strengthened and they had implemented a series of improvements prior and during this assessment.