Manu Integrity Services Limited

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 79 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. The management and staff put people's needs and wishes at the heart of everything they did.

The registered manager was passionate about improving people’s quality of life and it was clear staff shared this vision and were proud to work for the service. One relative said, “The service is doing an excellent job.” Another said, “They know what they are doing and provide excellent support.”

The provider’s ethos and values were shared with people and staff in their service user handbooks. Values and expectations were also reiterated to staff in team meetings. Staff understood the values of the organisation and told us there was good teamwork and a positive, person-centred culture.

The provider had a clear statement of purpose and vision and strategy for the service which the leaders were aware of. Values of the service were important to the leaders we spoke with, and they told us they were incorporated into everyday processes.

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.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the management team and their approach. Comments included, “The service is professional, organised and well managed,” The care company understands the importance of continuity and consistency.” And “I cannot think of anything they should be doing better.”

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

Staff spoke well of the registered manager and deputy saying they felt supported. They also spoke highly of their colleagues. They had staff meetings which were conducted openly and encouraged feedback. Staff told us they felt at ease to speak with the management team and felt listened to. We observed that there was a system in place to support staff to speak up and raise concerns relating to the care of people and the running of the service.

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 ensured the policies and procedures supported equality, diversity and human rights. There was a fair employment process in place which did not discriminate against the protected characteristics, such as age, gender or disability.

Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They said the service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression. They could raise any concerns without fear.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The registered manager had systems in place to check on the quality of the service people received. For example, analysis was carried out of all incidents, accidents, complaints, safeguarding and compliments to draw learning and make changes to the service. Surveys were completed with people, and their relatives and this feedback was used to make improvements to the service. Risk analysis was completed to ensure people remained safe and there were a series of audits to ensure safe practice which included medication, infection prevention control and care plan audits. The management team were aware of their roles and responsibilities, and this included the knowledge of incidents which needed to be reported to CQC as a notification and any safeguarding concerns with CQC and the local authority.

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 registered manager told us they worked in partnership with other agencies to provide support to people. For example, they worked with the district nurse, doctors and speech and language therapists to provide care to people and develop plans to support them. Records showed the provider engaged with other agencies to ensure people had support they needed.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The registered manager told us they valued the input of people, relatives and staff in providing learning and driving improvements. The management team encouraged ideas and suggestions in team meetings. They used incidents and audits to identify any learning opportunities. They shared any lessons learned with the team to drive improvement. Any learning identified was used to inform a quality improvement plan.

People and relatives shared their views about the service on a regular basis, and these informed how the provider improved the service. Staff told us they felt able to share information and influence change.