Aroma Care - Cotswold

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 changed to Good.

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 64 (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.

The manager explained the vision and ethos of the service were discussed during staff member’s inductions to ensure they understood them. Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion. The manager showed us where the organisations vision was recorded in the staff handbook and the values were on the induction form and on the website.

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 Nominated Individual was currently registering to become the Registered Manager of the service. The manager explained they had an open-door policy and actively encouraged staff to discuss any ideas or concerns with them. A staff member told us, “[The manager] is good and understanding. She's sociable, she's approachable. She is a leader. There is a difference between a ruler and a leader, and she is a leader.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were systems in place to support people and their relatives to feedback on their experiences of the service. This included care plan reviews, feedback forms, phone calls from the manager and the complaints process. The whistleblowing policy was able to be translated into any language to meet the needs of staff recruited internationally. There were opportunities for staff to speak up and share concerns and ideas. A staff member told us, “They pay attention to you, they listen and step in.”

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 received training in equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff were actively encouraged to share concerns and ideas. This was achieved through supervisions, appraisals and team meetings. All of the staff working for the service were recruited internationally, and people were informed the staff members came from different ethnic backgrounds to them. People were given the option to continue using the service or finding an alternative homecare provider. The service worked hard to support the staff with adapting to the standards of care in the UK and provided enhanced training for them. The service also supported staff with accommodation when they first moved to the UK and supported them with a no interest loan to buy a car of their choosing. The provider had an agreement with a car garage near their head office in Coventry where any staff member could receive a discount on MOT’s or vehicle repairs. Staff were given a fuel card to buy fuel by the provider.

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service. They carried out a variety of audits each month to identify any areas for improvement. This included care plans, medicines and health and safety audits. However, we found the safeguarding audits were reviewed quarterly and not monthly, and we found some incidents which required a statutory notification to the CQC were missed and not picked up until months later during the meeting to discuss the quarterly incidents. Staff’s training was monitored by the manager to ensure staff’s knowledge and skills were up to date. At the time of the inspection almost all staff were up to date with their training, spot checks and supervision. It was noted; however, the provider only required manual handling training and did not offer specific training relating to falls for staff. This was despite people having had falls within their homes both witnessed and unwitnessed by staff.

The service did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

There were some positive examples of how the provider worked well within their community. They had formed good working relationships with the pharmacies, occupational therapists and organisations which supported older people such as a local advocacy group, who shared an office in the same building as the service. The provider encouraged people to use facilities within their communities such as local weight loss groups, supported people to go shopping and for appointments. However, the service did not always share information and learning with other partnership agencies effectively, including CQC, but understood they needed to improve in this area. For example, the provider had not always included sufficient information when concerns were found with other organisations to allow joined-up learning to occur. The manager acknowledged the importance of working in partnership with other organisations to ensure people received consistent care.

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.

The manager demonstrated an understanding of the importance of learning, improvement and innovation. The manager planned to undertake a course to support the service with providing a care need for people who were not able to leave their homes. The manager also sourced additional live, online training and face to face training for staff who found online learning difficult. The manager told us, “We have found we had some downfalls, but we learned from that.” For example, the manager explained they were going to increase the amount of information they share with partner agencies and organisations to ensure learning from mistakes is more widely understood.