Medow Care 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 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.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not have clear systems of accountability, oversight or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider had some audit tools in place to monitor the quality of care provided although these were not effectively operated. The care co-ordinators monitored daily care delivery through tasks such as lateness, managing cancellations and incidents that occurred. The provider was not fully aware of the outcomes of those monitoring tasks, acknowledging during the inspection they relied upon those care co-ordinators and did not fully audit key areas themselves. People told us that staff could be late and that there were issues with consistency. The audits of call logs did not identify these, so therefore could not identify the issues with lateness and consistency. For example, analysis of the calls showed one person had 17 care staff attend to them whilst a second had 16 care staff. This had not been identified through existing governance systems. 25% of the calls reviewed showed no travel time, meaning staff had less time to travel from one person to the next. This was not identified through monitoring. The provider responded by reviewing the call routes for all people. Although no person experienced harm, people did experience some lateness unknown to the provider, that people described as an irritant.

No service improvement plan or action plan was in place to evidence key findings were being logged and action taken to improve the service provision. This was implemented during the inspection, following our feedback. Although the service was currently only providing care to 18 people, formal and robust systems of governance and oversight are imperative to sustain quality and drive improvement, to ensure people receive consistently good care as the service grows. The leadership team were open and transparent about their knowledge and understanding of the system. They told us they were in the process of understanding and learning the capabilities and limitations of their newly implemented care planning and call monitoring system.

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 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.