Archived: LLOYDS CARE GROUP LTD

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. 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 provider was in breach of regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 54 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Care plans and records did not identify people’s capacity and the level of support required with their decision making. This meant the culture of the organisation did not always put people at the centre of their vision and values as people’s liberties and human rights were not at the centre of their care.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively. The registered manager acknowledged that some of the concerns found on assessment had been due to the management teams lack of knowledge and experience, such as gaps in auditing and with recruitment issues. However, the registered manager was developing an action plan to upskill staff to ensure the level of training and ongoing development of the management team to mitigate these risks going forward.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Most people we spoke with told us they were confident to speak up and raise concerns, however some staff told us the provider was not always responsive or did not provide any feedback. One staff member said, “I have raised concerns, but nothing changed, and no one gave me any feedback.” Another staff member said, “I am confident to raise something, just not confident anything would be done.”

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. On staff member said, “We are all given opportunitiesto build careers and to enhance our skills, domiciliary work is mostly for drivers, but they give work to walkers and also supportthem to pass their driving tests.” Another staff member commented, “I really enjoy working here, I can request any training or support I need at any time.”

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. Whilst we saw evidence of senior management oversight of audits, these were not comprehensive or followed up with action plans. This had led to gaps in people’s risk assessments and care plans as demonstrated within this report which placed people at risk of harm and of not receiving care in line with their needs or wishes.

The provider clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with others, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Despite care records not detailing actions with partner agencies, the feedback we received was positive. One professional confirmed they had weekly meetings with the provider which were always open and transparent and focused on person centred care and support.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Whilst they encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcomes and quality of life for people, they did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research and did not accurately record or monitor this through effective governance such as audits. We spoke with the registered manager who was open and receptive to the feedback throughout this assessment. The registered manager acknowledged that care planning was lacking, and audits had failed to identify these risks. The senior leadership team immediately took steps to ensure people were safe whilst an action place was implemented to ensure care plan and quality monitoring processes were reviewed and improved.