Purple Heart Health Care

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance.

This service scored 62 (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.

Staff were aware of the provider’s values. A staff member said, “Our role is to make life easier for people and ensure that they do not feel different from others.”

The registered manager provided an overview of their professional background and described their interests, values, and commitment to delivering high‑quality support to individuals and their families. They said, “We care from the heart. I’m passionate about providing the best care we can. Funding can be a barrier; we support and advocate and signpost people to get the support they need.”

The registered manager told us how they ensured staff were trained and supported in respect and understanding of people’s different cultures and backgrounds.

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 registered manager was also the provider. The registered manager had experience in the health and social care sector and a relevant clinical background in mental health. During the inspection, they presented as compassionate, open and honest, and demonstrated a clear commitment to developing and improving the service.

The registered manager was supported by two senior care workers who held additional responsibilities to assist in the day‑to‑day operation of the service.

Staff meeting records demonstrated an inclusive approach to care delivery and service development. Staff confirmed they felt valued, respected and listened to by the registered manager.

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

The provider had created systems and processes, including policies and procedures such as Freedom to Speak Up, Whistleblowing and Safeguarding, to support staff to raise any concerns.

Staff informed us that they had access to the provider’s policies and procedures and felt confident speaking up when required. A staff member said, “My manager is kind and caring. They are always there to support you when you need anything regarding work. They know how to manage this 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 had systems and processes to support and develop an inclusive workforce that respected equality and diversity. Staff received regular and ongoing support through supervision meetings, annual appraisals, ongoing training, spot checks, and staff meetings. Staff were positive about the support they received.

Staff received equality and diversity training, equipping them with the knowledge and awareness to recognise and respect people’s individual characteristics, cultural backgrounds, and personal identities.

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

The provider’s governance systems, processes and procedures that assessed risks, and monitored quality and safety were not fully effective. They had failed to identify the shortfalls we found during this inspection, and this put people at increased risk of harm.

Assessment and monitoring procedures for individuals' care and support needs and known risks had failed to identify shortfalls in risk management and mitigation, as reported under the Safe and Effective key questions of this report.

Incident management, oversight and learning were limited. This meant the provider did not always identify patterns, take timely action to reduce risks, or embed lessons into day‑to‑day practice. As a result, opportunities to improve safety and prevent recurrence were sometimes missed.

People’s individual communication needs and preferences were limited in detail in the guidance for staff on how to support people effectively. People’s individual health needs and conditions were not assessed or planned for. Monitoring procedures had not identified this.

While the registered manager provided graphs and charts relating to care‑call monitoring, there was no evidence that this data had been reviewed or analysed to inform oversight or drive improvements.

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 registered manager told us, and records confirmed, there was a positive approach to partnership and collaborative ways of working. Referrals to external professionals were made in a timely manner, and guidance and support were sought when required from external health and social care partners.

Feedback from an external professional was positive about how well the registered manager had worked with them to meet people’s needs.

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.

Improvements were required in relation to learning, development, and innovation. The provider’simprovement plan lacked sufficient detail and offered limited assurance about how the servicewas being strengthened. The plan did not address the shortfalls identified during this inspection,which meant the provider’s systems and processes were not sufficiently robust or effective. Theregistered manager acknowledged they had limited external support and stated they wouldreview how this could be improved.