Angel Home Care Service Private 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 governance and oversight of the service were not always robust, consistent and effective.

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

This service scored 61 (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.

Although leaders and staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of delivering person‑centred, high‑quality care, this was not consistently reflected in the care documentation we reviewed.

Records were often generic, task‑focused and did not consistently describe how staff should support each person in a personalised way. For example, information about people’s communication needs, emotional wellbeing, cultural backgrounds and preferred routines was either missing, incomplete or not updated when needs changed. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to provide support that was tailored to each person.

In some cases, care plans did not evidence involvement from the person or their representatives, and there were gaps in documenting people’s choices or what was important to them. Daily notes tended to focus on tasks completed rather than people’s experiences or outcomes, making it difficult to understand whether support was delivered in line with their wishes.

As a result, the service could not demonstrate that person‑centred care principles were consistently embedded in practice, and there was a risk that people’s individuality and preferences were not fully recognised or respected.

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 leaders of the service had a good understanding of the issues and priorities within the within the service. There was evidence that concerns and poor practice were addressed promptly, and staff were recognised for their work.

Staff spoke very positively about the registered manager, describing them as responsive and visible within the service. One staff member told us, “The registered manager is always available, easy to approach. They will visit clients if needed.” Staff felt confident to speak up and believed their concerns would be listened to and acted upon.”

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

There were policies and procedures in place to support speaking up. People and staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and speak openly with the provider. There were regular touchpoints with staff, which provided opportunities for issues to be raised and discussed. However, there was little evidence to show how the feedback gathered from people and staff was used to drive continuous improvement within 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.

The provider worked in line with the Equality Act 2010 and promoted equality, diversity and inclusion within the service. Policies were in place that outlined the provider’s responsibilities to prevent discrimination and ensure people received care in a fair and equitable manner. The provider also employed a diverse workforce, which reflected a range of backgrounds, cultures and experiences. Staff told us they felt respected and valued, and that the organisation encouraged an inclusive environment.

The provider 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.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of the assessment, who also acted as Nominated Individual. They were visible within the service and demonstrated a good understanding of the service they led, and the care provided to people.

Governance systems and oversight arrangements were in place, however, these were not always effective. Completed audits were not consistently comprehensive, which limited the provider’s ability to identify issues within the service. Lessons learned were not always clearly identifies or used to drive improvements.

Additionally, the registered manager was reminded to ensure that current service user bands accurately reflect the care provided to people.

The service was in breach of regulations regarding good governance.

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 developed links with a number of stakeholders and local community partners to ensure these relationships benefited people they supported.

The provider understood the value of involving others whose expertise and knowledge contributed to improving outcomes for people.

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.

There were processes and procedures in place to support a learning culture within the organisation. However, there was very little evidence these were used effectively to identify areas for improvement or drive progress. Completed audits and checks were often tasked based and lacked meaningful analysis, providing limited insight into actions taken or required. Learning opportunities were not always identified.

There was also very little evidence to show how care when reviewed was measured against good practice standards. This limited the provider’s ability to evaluate the quality of care being delivered and to ensure continuous improvement across the service.