Kindherts 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.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not have clear systems of accountability, oversight or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider had some audit tools in place to monitor the quality of care provided although these were not effectively operated.

The provider had established governance and quality monitoring systems prior to and during this inspection which enabled leaders to identify risks, monitor service performance and recognise areas requiring further development. Management governance meetings reviewed key quality indicators, and during the assessment the provider demonstrated a clear understanding of service challenges and had already begun implementing improvements.

The provider had strengthened oversight through enhanced monitoring and reporting processes, sought external support to review governance, culture and leadership arrangements, and introduced new care planning and call-monitoring systems to improve operational oversight. These developments were helping leaders identify risks more effectively and support informed decision-making.

While some areas for further development were identified, including aspects of staff engagement, training oversight, learning from incidents and the analysis of service performance information, the provider had already recognised many of these issues and was taking action to address them. The governance framework was still embedding at the time of the assessment and therefore it was too early to fully evaluate its effectiveness.

However, there was no evidence that the issues identified had resulted in harm to people using the service. People continued to receive their planned care and support, safeguarding processes remained effective, and risks were identified and managed. Overall, the provider demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement, with ongoing work focused on strengthening data analysis, evidencing the impact of actions taken, and ensuring quality assurance processes consistently drive sustained improvement across the service.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

We found that the provider responded to risk in an open and transparent way, however this was with staff in isolation. The provider did not demonstrate learning was shared with all staff as a result, not all staff had an opportunity to discuss known risks, trends or incidents to improve the quality and safety of care. We raised this with the provider and they told us they were in the process of developing their organisational responsibilities and information sharing approach to ensure all staff were able to reflect of continuous learning and reflection to sustain good outcomes for people they cared for.