Spire Homecare 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 person-centred care.

This service scored 64 (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 always understand the challenges and needs of the people and their communities. Although there was a clearly defined vision and strategy that most staff understood. Staff told us the providers “mission statement is to provider the best care possible” and “to respect everyone.”

The provider had not always acted to address and improve in areas of care where people had raised concern. For example, several people told us they had to contact the office numerous times regarding late visits and staff were still late. Another person felt that an outcome from a concern they raised was dismissive. This meant people’s concerns were not always acted on or resolved, reducing confidence in the provider’s ability to listen and respond effectively. It also limited opportunities for improving culture through learning and improvement, which could impact the overall quality and experience of care for people.

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.

Staff described leaders as approachable and supportive. Comments included “HR and onboarding team are amazing”, “Supervisors are approachable” and “The director is available to talk to and always working in the office”.

During feedback, the provider acknowledged the shortfalls identified during the inspection and demonstrated a clear intention to address these areas through a structured improvement plan. Leaders had begun implementing measures to strengthen governance and oversight, including recruiting additional registered managers and introducing quality assurance roles to ensure accountability. They committed to reviewing care plans to include detailed information about people’s preferences, capacity, and future planning, and to improve staff supervision and appraisal processes. Further, they are embedding training and regular competency checks into staff culture to enhance knowledge and practice. These steps reflect the provider’s focus on learning from feedback and driving continuous improvement to deliver safe, person-centred care.

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

The provider had a whistleblowing policy which had been reviewed, and staff knew how to raise concerns. The office had posters and booklets which contained clear guidance for staff on how they could speak up.

The provider organised coffee mornings and encouraged staff to attend to share best practice but also to share concerns and ideas for improvement across the business. One person we spoke to told us they had been invited to the coffee morning. Feedback from the person was that they appreciated this invite and felt included in conversations about their care.

Staff told us they were confident if they raised a concern the registered manager would take the appropriate action. Staff felt the registered manager was approachable and supportive.

People we spoke to told us they knew how to raise a concern. Comments included “I’ll phone the office” and “If I need to speak up, I will speak to the care co-ordinator”.

There were systems to enable people to give their views about the service they received. This included client surveys although 8 out of 11 people we spoke to told us they had not had a recent survey. This meant opportunities for people to share feedback and influence improvements were limited, reducing the provider’s ability to fully understand and respond to people’s experiences.

The provider strongly valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair

culture which had improved equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they were treated as individuals by the provider. They felt listened to and encouraged to speak up in team meetings and share ideas.

The provider had a sponsorship licence. This meant overseas workers were welcome to work for the provider, subject to checks taking place. All staff we spoke to told us they felt they worked in an inclusive environment. Comments included “I mentioned support [for overseas workers] to help with cultural differences … they took notice and introduced support for sponsorship staff” and “When I experienced discrimination, the provider spoke to the client and informed them there is a zero tolerance policy on racism and discrimination”.

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.

The organisation had recently experienced a period of expansion, and the registered manager had been absent for a number of months. This meant there had been challenges in maintaining robust oversight of the service. For example, the compliments and complaints tracker did not have any lessons learnt or follow up action recorded. We saw shortfalls in staff supervision records and overdue appraisals, and care plans had not been regularly reviewed. The provider recognised this and engaged in a recruitment drive for more registered managers and incorporated new roles into the business such as quality assurance leads.

This meant there was a risk staff were not consistently supported or supervised, and care plans did not always reflect people’s current needs. These shortfalls had impacted the quality and continuity of care, although leaders had begun implementing an action plan to address these shortfalls and restore effective governance.

Information was stored across different platforms. The provider told us they had recently moved to a new digital care planning system. However, not all records had been transferred. Staff files were stored in different locations, with some remaining in paper format and others partially uploaded. This meant there was a risk of inconsistent or incomplete information being available to staff and leaders, which could impact decision-making, delay responses to issues, and reduce the provider’s ability to maintain effective oversight and governance.

Leaders completed a range of audits and observations of staff practice to monitor the quality of the service. This information was used to plan improvements. For example, medication competency checks ensured staff were competent to administer medicines and infection prevention control observations ensured compliance with national guidance on preventing infection outbreaks.

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.

This included a situation where a person’s needs had recently changed. In order for the person to receive the right support, the provider ensured they had open communication channels with other services. Managers had also worked to reduce the number of people in hospital, ensuring packages were in place for when they were discharged from hospital.

The provider also worked with external organisations to support with ongoing quality assurance. They had undertaken a mock inspection in order to highlight areas that required improvements. This demonstrated a proactive approach to identifying gaps and driving for continuous improvement, ensuring the provider could take targeted action to strengthen quality and compliance systems.

The provider understood the importance of accessing the community and supported people to find events and gatherings that were of interest to them. For example, inviting people to meetings and ensuring transport was in place for them to attend and a person with complex health needs was supported to undertake activities in the community. This meant people maintained a social life and the risk of social isolation was reduced.

The provider demonstrated some commitment to learning and improvement, but systems were not always effective in embedding lessons across the service. Staff and leaders shared examples of creative approaches, such as introducing assistive technology to support communication and adapting care plans to meet changing needs. These initiatives showed a willingness to innovate and respond flexibly.

However, processes for capturing and acting on learning were inconsistent. For example, the complaints tracker highlighted recurring issues with late visits, but there was no evidence of follow-up actions or trend analysis. This meant the provider could not be assured that improvements were sustained or that similar issues would be prevented in the future. Despite this, staff told us they felt encouraged to share ideas, and leaders had begun implementing measures to strengthen oversight and drive continuous improvement.