Blue River Home Care Waltham Abbey Also known as Blue River Home Care Greater London

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 changed to 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 at the service.

This service scored 61 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was consistently embedded across the service. Whilst staff demonstrated a caring approach and a good understanding of the people they supported, this was not underpinned by effective systems, leadership or oversight.

There were organisational shortfalls in relation to governance, record keeping and oversight of care, which meant the provider could not always demonstrate how a shared vision or strategy was implemented in practice. Processes such as care planning, reviews and documentation were not consistently managed, reflecting a lack of clear direction.

Operational leadership did not always result in effective management or good governance of the service. However, the registered manager was open about where improvements were needed and engaged with the assessment process accordingly. Staff felt overwhelmingly supported by the registered manager and this was communicated to us throughout the assessment. For example a care worker told us, “She is good. She checks on us makes sure we are doing our job and checks on us personally as well.” Another care worker said, “The registered manager is supportive.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. A care worker told us, “If there’s ever an issue, [registered manager] is supportive. I feel heard. I absolutely love my job.”

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 registered manager supported staff with their individual religion, culture and circumstances. A care worker told us, “She’s very understanding and fair, it works for my personal life.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or effective governance processes in place. There were gaps in oversights of care planning, reviews and record keeping, and systems were not consistently used to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Records were not always accurate, complete or up to date and did not consistently demonstrate how care was reviewed or improved. Although some audits and spot checks had been completed, these were not consistently used to identify and address the issues found during the assessment. This meant governance systems were not sufficiently robust to provide effective oversight.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other professionals and within the community. There was evidence that staff liaised with external professionals including mental health teams and the local authority to support people’s care, however this was not always recorded consistently.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Whilst there was evidence that staff received training, records were not always readily available to confirm this, and systems to monitor and evidence learning were not robust.

Staff spoke positively about the training they received and told us they felt supported in their roles, including opportunities for development and progression. This indicated that learning and development was encouraged in practice. However, the provider could not always clearly demonstrate how learning was embedded across the service or how it contributed to improvements in care delivery.