Kanssas Home Care 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. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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. They operated with a passion to provide good quality care and understood the challenges and the needs of people. Staff and leaders demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them and people using the service. Staff described a positive, supportive, helpful and proactive culture within the organisation.

People and their relatives told us they would recommend the service. Their comments included, “We generally have a good relationship with management staff and whenever I’ve spoken to them, they have always been attentive and understanding and address our issues. I would recommend Kanssas Home Care Ltd, with confidence, because all staff have worked hard to satisfy our needs” and “I can’t praise them enough. Any issues are sorted quickly. I would highly recommend Kanssas Home Care Ltd, for the high commitment in our care.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care 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.

Management staff were approachable and readily available. They maintained good oversight of day-to-day matters, ensuring staff had the support and guidance needed to perform their roles effectively. They demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s needs and worked to deliver safe, caring, and person-centred support. A person told us, “I occasionally have contact with management and each time, it’s been positive responses to my needs.” A relative commented, “Our relationship with management is very good. They have been very pro-active.” Staff consistently spoke about the positive support they received and the responsiveness of their leaders. A staff member said, “[Managers] are very friendly. They treat us with respect and are happy to help.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they could easily approach managers, discuss any concerns, and felt managers made every effort to respond to them. Feedback from staff included, “If I don't agree with something, I will say. They listen and take on board” and “Whenever we have to talk to management about any concerns, they respond quickly.”

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 registered manager discussed the challenges of ensuring a diverse workforce and explained the steps they were taking to improve this.

The provider created a safe, friendly and fair working environment for staff. They responded appropriately to staff needs and ensured staff had opportunities to discuss any issues. Staff spoke to us about the flexibility they experienced in their working arrangements, as well as the supportive and open culture within the service.

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. However, while the provider maintained a clear log of concerns affecting people using the service, we identified not all of these had been reported to CQC as required.

We reviewed the provider’s safeguarding records, which were clear and comprehensive and set out the actions taken to keep people safe. Although they had been reported to the local authority, we identified some safeguarding concerns had not been reported to CQC in line with statutory notification requirements. The registered manager provided assurances regarding people’s safety and explained some concerns had not progressed to local authority-led investigations, as prompt action had been taken to ensure people were protected from abuse and neglect. Following discussion, the registered manager acknowledged the oversight and demonstrated an understanding of the requirement to notify CQC of relevant events. They advised that systems had been strengthened to help ensure all safeguarding concerns and allegations of abuse or neglect would be appropriately notified to CQC going forward.

The provider operated effective systems to monitor and assess the quality of service, including audits, spot checks, weekly reporting of risk and quality indicators, and regular quality monitoring phone calls to people using the service. The management team collaborated effectively and understood their individual roles and responsibilities. These systems and approaches ensured people received good quality care.

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.

Evidence showed a multi-disciplinary and collaborative approach in delivering care services to people. Staff shared information and reported issues promptly to external stakeholders appropriately. They involved people and their relatives in care planning and decision making. A relative told us, “I’m grateful that the management have been pro-active and informed me too, when they have been in contact with social services.”

While the provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation to improve people’s experiences, outcomes and quality of life, we found an area of concern where further work was needed.

Feedback from people and their relatives indicated there were times when staff spoke in other languages in the presence of people using the service, which could impact inclusive communication and people’s ability to feel fully involved. The provider had already identified this as an area for improvement and had taken steps to address it with staff. However, this feedback indicated that further work was required to ensure improvements were fully embedded and consistently reflected in practice.

The service had developed a culture of learning and improvement, where incidents, complaints, safeguarding concerns, and other issues affecting people were analysed and used to drive improvement. Managers captured feedback from people, relatives and staff through a range of methods, and used it to assess and improve the service. Comments from people and their relatives demonstrated their views and concerns were taken seriously and acted upon, and highlighted positive steps taken by the service, including individual staff members, to improve people’s lives.