Support Care Services

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

We found the provider to be in breach of 1 legal regulation in relation to good governance.

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.

The provider had a shared culture and ensured staff in all areas understood the values of the service and how their role helps in achieving them. The provider and staff worked collaboratively with relevant healthcare services to ensure delivery of care. A clear management structure was in place. Staff had clear roles and responsibilities and were informed of their roles and reporting arrangements. Staff spoke positively about the management of the service. A staff member told us, “It is a good company, she is a good manager and I feel supported.”

The provider had inclusive leadership. The service operated in an open way and the registered manager was visible at all levels and available for people, relatives and staff when needed. A staff member told us, “The manager is very supportive.”

Relatives spoke positively about the registered manager and the way the service was managed to deliver care. A relative told us, “[Registered manager] is amazing and so hands on. She has spent time with the clients to fully understand them and makes sure her team do everything possible to make them comfortable and safe.” Another relative told us, “[Registered manager] is just wonderful She will go over and above to help all her clients and is very logical with good solid solutions to problems. She is totally contactable at all hours and if she misses your call, will ring back very quickly.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where staff felt they could speak-up and their voice would be heard. Staff were able to discuss issues at supervision meetings and team meetings. A staff member told us, “We have team meetings. Any information/updates are passed to us. We talk about work and if there are any issues with people and their care.”

People and relatives were able to approach staff and the registered manager if they had any concerns. A person told us, “I do know how to get hold of [registered manager] if I need to. I think it is a good company.” A relative told us, “I speak to [registered manager] quite often and she is very good. If I need anything she will always make an effort to sort things out quickly.” Another relative told us, “[Registered manager] has been extremely good and very professional. The whole team are friendly and engage fully with both [person] and myself. I have a WhatsApp contact should I need to speak with [registered manager] and I feel assured that she will support and help me.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. The registered manager and staff worked together as a team. Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion to enable a more equitable and inclusive organisation.

The provider did not have good governance. Audits and checks were completed to assess and monitor the quality of the service covering areas such as medicines, health and safety and infection control. However, during this assessment, we found recruitment processes were not always robust and complete records had not always been maintained with regards to people’s care.

The registered manager acknowledged our concerns and was aware improvement was needed with record keeping. The registered manager told us due to a number of challenging circumstances since the last inspection; this had caused a lapse in record maintenance. In response to this, the registered manager had recruited an additional office staff member to support them in this area

There were instances of calls not being managed well. Staff also told us they had regular people to care for and knew people well. However, staff did tell us the duration of calls, at times would take longer than planned and this had an impact on the remaining calls. Staff also told us some days they would finish late in the evening and have an early start the next day.

We reviewed the ECM records for March 2026 and found there were instances of this. Therefore, we could not be assured calls were being managed well. For example, for one person, the planned call was for 1 hour, however the call time duration recorded was 1 hour and 41 minutes. For another person, the planned call was for 1 1/2 hours, however the call time duration recorded was 1 hour 53 minutes.

The ECM records were also not clear as there were instances which showed a short time difference between calls, for example, ECM records showed staff logged out of a call at 11.25am and the next call was logged at 11.31am. This call was finished at 13.12pm and the next call was logged at 13.14pm.

We raised this with the registered manager who told us staff would at times log in early or there was flexibility agreed with people and relatives with the times calls were attended. However, ECM records did not clearly reflect this. The registered manager told us they would review this and ensure call times were monitored and managed effectively.

During this assessment, we found the registered manager to be open and receptive to feedback and cooperated with the assessment process and willing to learn from feedback. The registered manager told us, “We remain committed to maintaining safe, effective, and person-centred care, while continuing to review and improve our systems and practices where required.”

The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regards to duty of candour and notifying the CQC and relevant healthcare professionals of any significant events at the service.

People and relatives spoke positively about the service and the care and treatment received. Relatives told us, “I think as a company all of them go over and above and I would totally recommend them to others.” “I have been extremely impressed with the service” and “I would recommend them 100%.” Staff also told us they felt supported working with the service.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate, work in partnership and share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. The provider worked with other professionals if needed to help make sure people received continuity in their care.

The provider focused on learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. Processes were in place to ensure learning was reflected and good practice identified from daily notes, information sharing with staff during team meetings and audits which monitored the quality of service being delivered. People, relatives and staff were encouraged for their views about the service and what could be improved. The service worked with healthcare professionals that supported learning and good practice to deliver effective joined up care.