HK Care Consulting 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff told us they felt part of a team and enjoyed working at the service. A staff member said, “I know I am well looked after, [leaders] are very nice to me. We have enough time to take care of people, we are not in a rush.” Another staff member explained, “We have been having training as soon as it expires, you just get a prompt from [name of training website] to renew it, it is really helpful.”

While the provider was responsive during our inspection process and took steps to address concerns raised during our feedback, they had not been proactive in identifying and addressing shortfalls identified during this inspection.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Relatives were complimentary about the management of the service.

The registered manager was responsible for people’s care plans and risk assessments. Some contained errors, which were addressed following the inspection.

While staff confirmed the management demonstrated compassionate and inclusive leadership by listening to their concerns and providing support to them, our inspection found significant shortfalls in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, and good governance.

Staff and relatives were positive about the registered manager and the staff team. The registered manager was visible within the service and involved in the day‑to‑day running of the home. However, whilst the registered manager was compassionate and caring, they did not always have effective oversight of care delivery, treatment and support. This meant they were not consistently identifying or addressing shortfalls in people’s care and learning from incidents. Gaps in governance and risk oversight meant people could not always be assured the service was consistently well-led.

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

Staff told us they felt confident to raise any concerns they had with leaders, although recognised this had not been required. One staff member explained, “They are lovely, I have not had any issues, but when the need arises for support, they would be ready to support me.”

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.

Staff were unanimously positive about the support they received from the provider. Staff felt supported in a number of ways, including with the training they received, their salary being paid on time and being paid for travel time, access to company cars, and being given compassionate leave when required.

One staff member explained, “They have company cars to make life easier, I will just park my car and take the company car. I feel supported.” Another staff member told us, “If there is a rota I think will stress me, they will change it for me.”

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

Governance systems were in place but were not consistently effective in identifying and addressing risks in a timely way.

Improvements were required in the governance of the service to ensure it was robust and effective in day-to-day quality assurance. We identified concerns in relation to mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions, the risk of overmedication due to distressed behaviour for 1 person, some conflicting information in care plans, and staff recruitment and supervision. Whilst the registered manager had completed audits at the service, these had failed to identify the concerns prior to our inspection. This meant the registered manager could not demonstrate they had oversight of the overall quality of care delivered to people.

The provider acted very promptly in response to feedback and expedited their own action plan; however, these actions were reactive.

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 service understood how to work well with other healthcare partners. One person had experienced a change in their needs, and the provider had arranged meetings with other healthcare partners to review the person’s package of care and to enable them to make changes as part of a multi-disciplinary team.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

The provider's systems and processes were not effective in identifying and addressing concerns consistently or in a timely way. Leaders demonstrated an open and positive attitude during the assessment and responded promptly to feedback, taking action on the day to address some of the issues identified. However, the service was previously rated requires improvement, and concerns about governance were identified at the last inspection. Similar issues remained at this assessment, showing the provider had not fully embedded learning or made sufficient improvements to prevent concerns from reoccurring. While leaders showed a willingness to improve, further work was needed to ensure learning led to sustained and effective change.