Liral Veget Training and Recruitment 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.

The last rating for this key question was inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We identified a breach of regulations. The provider failed to provide safe effective leadership, governance and maintain robust oversight of the service and its delivery. There were audits in place to monitor the quality of service. However, these were not robust enough to identify the issues we found during this assessment.

Despite the above, people and their relatives were positive about how the service was run and the support they received from the registered manager and care worker.

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 had developed an inclusive culture at the service. People and their relatives and care workers were happy with the way the service was managed and run. The registered manager explained the company had clear management system and process.

There was a clear management structure at the service. Care workers were aware of the roles of the management team. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities.

The service had an on-call system to make sure care workers had support outside of office working hours and care workers confirmed this was available to them.

Care workers told us they had access to support and advice from the registered manager and they were approachable.

There were systems in place to ensure the provider sought the views of people using the service through surveys that were conducted.

Care workers were positive about how the service was run and the support they received from the management team. One care worker told us, “They are such lovely people. We work as a family and if I have any ideas about the personal care they listen to me. When you are on the wrong side, they gently bring you back, and teach you the right way. I’ve never had to raise any concerns.” Another care worker said, “It is very pleasing to work for LVTR, the care workers and manager are very friendly. They give good advice and direction.”

The provider had systems for staff to speak up and share their concerns. Staff were aware of these and told us they felt confident doing this and that their feedback would be acted on.

The provider valued diversity and inclusion in the workplace. They employed care workers from a range of cultural and gender backgrounds.

At our last inspection the provider had failed to operate effective quality assurance process. This was a breach of Regulation 17. At this assessment, we found the provider had remained in breach of Regulation 17.

The provider did not have an effective oversight of the service. The quality assurance system and processes had failed to identify and correct issues we found at the inspection.

The care agreements, provider had with another provider and 1 person which, did not guarantee the choice and control of a personal care provider for people to choose, or change should they need to, and the guidance Right Support Right Care Right Culture for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

People did not have access to information that they needed to raise concerns or make a complaint to commissioners and safeguarding team of a local authority.

People and their relatives were not provided with accurate information about the previous inspection rating at all times.

The provider failed to act in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated code of practice in relation to people using the service.

Where people lacked mental capacity to make informed decision or give consent, the provider did not uphold their rights.

The provider failed to ensure care workers were completing the care logs accurately, to evidence that they were not employed beyond the permitted 20 hours per week and 2 staff members told us they slept over night at the supported living scheme.

Despite the above, people and their relatives were positive about how the service was run and the support they received from the registered manager and care workers. One relative said, “Yes, it is, they[manager] come in and check on them [care worker] so everything is in order.” Another relative told us, “It is yes, with all of the challenges they have it is. They [Management team] get the right [care workers] who really know my loved one and the management team get that right.”

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The service had a registered manager in post. They were aware of their registration requirements with CQC and understood the importance of quality monitoring and continuous learning and improvement within the service.
The registered manager was committed to achieving positive outcomes for people.
The registered manager developed integrated care plans that clearly delineated which provider was responsible for the different aspects of support to people. For example this provider delivered personal care to people and other aspects of support by another provider. Both the providers maintained separate records of care provided.