Whispers Care Solutions 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 changed to requires improvement.

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

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

Overall, the leadership team were generally seen as approachable and visible, and around when people and staff needed them. However, there were areas where collaboration and best practices had not been fully developed. Whilst staff members had largely described leaders as accessible, indicating a positive level of engagement, some staff had expressed a need for more structured opportunities to meet as a team, review approaches, and discuss emerging risks. This meant teamwork and communication could have been stronger to ensure all voices within the organisation had been heard and valued.

Despite robust contingency and succession planning to maintain leadership stability, leaders required further development in specific areas of best practice, particularly regarding duty of candour and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Whilst action had been initiated to address these gaps, their existence suggested that leadership, though competent in many aspects, needed to refine their expertise to enable them to lead effectively.

Feedback from people and their relatives had presented a mixed picture of leadership effectiveness. Some were happy overall, whilst others had voiced concerns about missed calls, mistakes, and a perception that keeping staff was seen as more important than caring for people. These concerns indicate the service could make improvements to support people to feel more confident in the care they received.

Overall, the leadership team had demonstrated strengths in approachability, visibility, and planning for continuity. However, there were challenges in working together and improving skills. These shortfalls showed that there were areas that needed improvement.

The provider fostered a positive culture where staff felt able to speak up, and where concerns relating to people were raised, staff felt listened to. Leaders encouraged a culture of speaking up; there were systems in place for staff to raise concerns using various methods. Staff told us they felt able to make suggestions, were supported to implement their ideas and that there was an openness from the provider to trying different things. We observed this in practice during the assessment; staff contributed ideas for improvements and were supported to implement them. For example, improving the provider’s care plans auditing process. The provider had a system in place for senior leaders to review records recording staff interactions, such as supervisions and spot checks. Leaders told us they used this system to identify any further follow up required which would be carried out by the most appropriate manager.

Overall, the provider valued diversity within their workforce. They strived to create an inclusive and equitable environment by fostering equality and fairness for their staff, supported by established systems and processes. The provider shared how they celebrated and acknowledged diversity within their service, utilising social media to highlight and promote various cultural and community events, such as those related to LGBTQ+ awareness.

Leaders emphasised the importance of fostering a sense of connection and belonging among all staff members. To support this, they introduced measures like a unified dress code for all staff, including leaders, and designed office spaces to be welcoming and accommodating, particularly for team members who typically worked off-site. Leaders also took a proactive approach to understanding and addressing individual needs, offering flexible support and adjustments when required. These efforts were backed by robust systems and processes that facilitated these initiatives.

The provider did not have effective governance systems in place to identify and drive all improvements at the service. They did not always act on the best information about risk and performance. Governance arrangements were in place, but these were not always being operated effectively. Audits were completed but failed to identify all of the concerns we found during our assessment. For example, shortfalls in people’s risk assessments and care plans had not been identified. Leaders had also not identified the relevant consent, decision-making and restrictive practice requirements of legislation and guidance had not always been followed. Whilst the provider had identified a need for their audits to be more robust, they had not identified the extent of the concerns we identified during our assessment. We were therefore not assured that all areas of service delivery were being adequately monitored and that actions were taken to make improvements. The provider was responsive during the assessment and started to take action to address the shortfalls identified.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. Both leaders and staff shared examples which illustrated partnership working with other external agencies and professionals. These examples demonstrated how this had benefitted and improved people's quality of life. Professionals were positive about the service and staff. They told us staff were overall knowledgeable, experienced and professional; providing relevant information when needed. They felt this supported a collaborative and joined-up approach to promote the best outcomes for people. Staff and leaders engaged with partners to share learning with each other that resulted in continuous improvements to the service.

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