HIL CARE (EAST YORKSHIRE) 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 71 (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 and their communities. People and their relatives spoke positively about the management and all staff. Comments included, “[Providers name] and the staff they are great. They are all nice and helpful for me" and "This is first service that [Name] is really happy and settled." The provider was open and honest throughout the assessment. They were aware of improvements that were required at the service and were actively addressing these.

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. The provider was visible and approachable throughout our assessment of the service. Staff told us they felt supported and could approach management with issues. However, we did identify some issues with the governance of the service. The provider was aware of the shortfall and was actively addressing these areas to ensure the governance in place was more reflective of the improvements needed and completed. For example, some of the audits we reviewed did not always record the action that had been taken to make improvements within the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was an open and inclusive culture at the service. Whilst there were some improvements needed, management and staff were aware of these and encouraged staff, people and relatives to raise any concerns they felt required addressing. Staff felt the management team were approachable and felt confident that appropriate action would be taken if they raised any issues. The provider had recently implemented suggestion boxes in each of the houses to encourage feedback and aid continuous improvement at 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. Staff were happy in their work and felt supported by the management team. Regular supervisions and meetings were completed to promote staff development and make improvements within the service. Effective communication between the provider and staff team supported people to receive their preferred care and support.

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 provider understood their legal responsibility to notify the CQC about incidents that affected people's safety and welfare; records showed they had done so accordingly. Discussions took place about recent incidents that had occurred, and the provider submitted further notifications during the assessment. Systems and processes were in place to monitor and improve the service. However, records were not always fully completed or did not always include details of the actions taken. The provider was working to address this.

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 and staff routinely worked with visiting health professionals to ensure people received the right support. Information regarding the service delivery had been shared with the local authority and discussions had been held to ensure people continued to get the care and support they required.

The provider did not always focus 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. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. Opportunities to continuously learn lessons and improve the service were missed, especially when things went wrong. For example, where incidents were reported no follow up action had been taken to identify lessons learnt. However, we found the provider and staff worked in a collaborate manner with people, relatives and professionals to ensure people had all appropriate support in place to manage their safety.