iCare Solutions Manchester 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 remained 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 75 (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 provider, manager and staff had a shared culture and passion for ensuring people reached their maximum potential. The provider and manager were visible and accessible for staff to seek advice and guidance. Staff told us the provider and manager were fair, had an ‘open door’ policy and they created a positive working culture to drive continual learning and improvement. One staff member told us, “The provider visits every day, we can approach them with any questions without any issues.”

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.

Leaders were skilled and experienced to effectively run the service. Staff praised the provider, the manager and the wider management team. Staff spoke positively about the support they received. One staff member told us, “[Manager] is the only reason I am still here. [Manager] is a really good advocate for care. They are very professional, nice, fair, and receptive. [Manager[ listens to us. I respect them. [Manager] will respond quickly, and actions issues quickly.[Manager] creates an open environment where you can share ideas.”

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

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. The service had a whistleblowing policy in place. Staff we spoke with told us they felt able to speak up about any issues and their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. Comments included, “If I needed to whistle blow I know what to do. I have not needed to do it, but I would contact the office straight away” and “If I had any concerns I would report them straight to my manager.”

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’s recruitment process and internal processes meant staff were recruited fairly and workforce equity was promoted. The provider employed a wide range of staff with diverse backgrounds. They also supported staff to progress in their roles, for example by gaining new qualifications and progressing into different roles within the service.

Staff told us they felt they were treated with respect, and the manager fostered an inclusive and fair environment.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. The provider had a good level of oversight of the service and regularly visited the office location.

Governance systems were in place to monitor the standard of care people received. Staff had regular contact with people and completed regular reviews, which also reviewed the quality of care received. Various regular meetings took place with different staff teams, which also looked at the quality of care and performance.

Various auditing systems were in place and timely action was taken if follow up work was required. Regular audits of people’s care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and daily records took place.

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.

In our review of people’s care records, conversations with the manager and staff, we found the provider was in contact with relevant health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met in a timely way. One staff member told us, “We have good community links with multiple professionals.”

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.

Processes were in place to ensure learning happened when things went wrong. The service also shared examples of good practice to support further learning. The provider had implemented learning from a recent local authority audit, and we found the service had made improvements.

The provider implemented a quality assurance system which looked at various areas within the service, including safeguarding, infection control, medication, nutrition, health and safety, recruitment and was used to drive improvements.

Surveys had been issued to people, their relatives and staff, results were analysed and action plans were created to drive service improvements.

As part of this assessment, we spoke with people and relatives about their experiences of the care and services they received. Feedback was mixed, although a lot of people were happy with the care, consistency of care staff and were being informed when their visits were later than planned, others had complaints about consistency of care staff, timings of visits and not always being informed when their visits were running late. We fed this back to the manager, who took the information on board and showed a commitment in improving services for people. The manager also explained they valued consistency of care staff, however this was sometimes difficult when staff were on leave or they had a period of sickness. The manager also explained people’s care visits were not time specific and there was a 30 minute tolerance before and after their allotted time slots, however, the service was continuously working to meet people’s time preferences.

Some relatives expressed they would like to have access to people’s daily notes which was recorded on an electronic app. We fed this back to the manager who informed us, currently the electronic app [provided by an external company] does not have the facility to allow relatives access to the daily notes. However, the company is developing the app to allow this function, and once active, the information will be shared with people and their relatives about how to access the daily notes.