Delta Care 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 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 68 (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 the provider fostered a culture which was based to provide high-quality person-centred support and care to people, to enable them to live independently for as long as possible in the comfort of their own homes, this was not always as effective in practice. For example, although people were positive about the care they received from staff, most people fed back their care call duration was shorter than allocated, meaning there was a risk people’s needs and challenges may not be fully understood or met by staff.

However, staff we spoke with were committed to providing people with the highest standards of care they could. One member of staff told us, “They [people using the service] expect good communication and for us be empathetic - if you feel what they feel you would give the best care you can.”

For staff who required further development to help achieve the best standards, staff were further supported via supervision, training and reflective practice.

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.

Since our last assessment, a new registered manager was in place. The registered manager had previously worked at the provider’s sister location and was familiar with how the provider delivered care and with the culture and ethos of the service.

We received consistently positive feedback about the registered manager from the staff. Comments included, “[Manager’s Name] is fantastic, she listens to and sorts out any problems, I can approach her with anything,” “I only have to report something to [Manager’s Name] once and by the next day its done,” and “I feel so supported by the manager and office staff, even at the weekends, staff love just dropping into the office for a chat.”

The registered manager shared an example where they had shown compassion by supporting a person with a specific and sensitive need, the registered manager ensured the person was supported with great sensitivity and inclusiveness.

The provider ensured staff’s achievements were recognised and celebrated via an ‘Employee of the Month’ scheme, which was published in the provider’s monthly newsletter.

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

People were involved and consulted in reviews about their care and support needs. One person told us, “I was provided with a questionnaire”. However, 1 person commented, “I haven't received a questionnaire, and nobody has checked me since I joined the care company.” We fed this back to the registered manager who promptly organised a home visit.

People were able to feedback via questionnaires, home visits and telephone calls. The provider welcomed any feedback. We looked at a sample of people’s responses and found people had made positive comments, such as, “The carers are kind, caring and efficient,” “They [staff] have been helpful in getting myself back to better health, I would be lost without them” and “They [staff] treat me with privacy and dignity.”

The service understood its obligation to adhere to a duty of candour. When something went wrong, people received a timely apology, and actions were taken to prevent the same happening again. 

Staff were consulted for their feedback through methods such as questionnaires, staff meetings and staff supervision processes. Staff also told us; they had the opportunity to speak up and felt comfortable to do so. Comments from staff included, “I feel listened to and valued,” and “We do have staff feedback questionnaires, but we can feed back anytime."

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.

Processes were in place which helped to protect the rights of staff under the Equality Act. Risk assessments and any reasonable adjustments measures were used if appropriate. This helped to create a more equitable and inclusive organisation.

As well as locally recruited staff, the provider employed overseas staff via the government sponsorship scheme. Staff shared examples of how the registered manager had helped them with any personal issues, to help them settle into their new lives. It was clear staff were happy in their work and were keen to tell us. One member of staff told us, “I am so happy here, I love it, I love going into the office and talking with the manager."

Whist we were assured the provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance and acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. We were not always assured they used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support.

People’s feedback, call duration and staff rotas showed that staff were not always staying for the allocated care call duration, meaning there was a risk the quality and sustainability of care was compromised.

Governance tools, such as audits, were used to monitor and help improve the quality of care. Although we were assured audits and checks were effective at highlighting any shortfalls, it wasn’t always clear as to what action had been taken to rectify. For example, for a staff members spot check which had identified areas for improvement, it wasn’t always clear what action had been taken by the provider in response.

We fed our findings back to the registered manager who was highly responsive to our feedback, which demonstrated their commitment to manage and deliver high quality care and support.

Policies and procedures helped staff understand their role and responsibilities. The registered manager was able to account for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff. For example, by using supervision, appraisal and regular competency checks.

Audits and governance processes such as the analysis of accidents and incidents enabled a proportionate approach to managing risk. These processes helped to ensure the service had an accurate picture of risk to the safety and quality of the service at any one time. Where risk had been identified, action was taken to help implement measures to reduce the risk.

One member of staff told us, “Staff are good at reporting concerns, of course there’s always room for improvement, but we have had the training and can ask for more."

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 was open and transparent, and collaborated with relevant external stakeholders and agencies. For example, we saw how staff engaged with external health and social care specialists to help ensure people had access to the care they required. One member of staff told us, “Sometimes, a discharge from the hospital care package lasts 3 weeks, if we feel it needs to be longer, we fight for people to get it.”

For 1 person, we saw how staff worked in conjunction with mental health nurses, to help better support that person’s needs.

The provider was also part of the Local Authority’s forum, which helped to foster strong working relationships and to help with continued learning.

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 help to ensure learning happened when things went wrong, and from examples of good practice. For example, learning took place in staff meetings and during supervision processes. One the day of our assessment, we observed a staff meeting which had been called to discuss a person’s change in need, to help achieve the best outcome for them. A member of staff told us, “We are having a meeting today about a client and how we can best support them.”

Staff were supported to develop their skills around improvement and innovation. A member of staff confirmed, “If I need more support and training, I get ask and get it, I’m going to start to assess staff with moving and handling, so I am having additional training for the role.”

The registered manager was keen to share with us how they had set up a new hub to help triage people’s phone calls at the weekends, a particularly busy time. Due to the hub’s success, this had helped to save time, enabling staff to assess new people even on Saturdays, meaning people could be discharged quicker from hospitals back into their own homes.