Metro Homecare 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 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 good governance.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Whilst the registered manager told us they had shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, we could not be assured these principles had always been met. People we spoke with did not always feel the provider engaged with them.

A family member told us, “I believe my [relative] communicates through the carers, I don’t know if she has any other contact with the managerial side. It’s not very good communication between the manager and people they support, it’s been a few months now and we haven’t heard much.”

Leaders did not always understand the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always demonstrate the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively. Whilst the registered manager showed empathy and kindness towards people who used the service, they did not address concerns raised by people using the service and their families.

Staff we spoke to felt supported by their manager. They told us, they enjoyed working with the manager and were able to approach them for help whenever they needed it.

The provider did not always foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. A person receiving support told us, “Communication isn’t very good, any messages go through the carers. We have been using the service for a few months, there was an initial briefing, and we have not heard or seen them since.”

Staff felt they were able to speak to their manager if they had concerns and told us they felt confident they would be listened to.

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’s recruitment policy and procedures ensured fair recruitment which reflected the needs of the people the provider delivered care to. The provider was flexible with their staff and understood their staff had other responsibilities away from the work setting. Staff had access to training and felt able to ask for whatever additional training they might need to carry out their roles effectively.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. The provider’s systems for monitoring the delivery of care visits and medicines administration identified repeated issues relating to punctuality. Despite this, the provider did not act on the information available to them and did not address the timing and lateness of people’s care visits. This impacted on the quality and safety of people’s care.

The providers systems identified instances where no travel time had been allowed for staff to move between each call. This meant other calls were at risk of being rushed or cut short which was confirmed by some people we spoke with.

The provider’s governance processes had not identified or addressed the concerns we found with some staff working long periods, which potentially put themselves and the safety of people they supported at risk.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. The provider did not identify people’s concerns about the impact issues relating to punctuality and inconsistent staffing had on them. People told us they felt once their care packages had been established, the communication they had with the provider ended.

Staff we spoke with told us how they provided additional support so people could access community facilities such as shops and other local amenities. The registered manager told us staff also supported people to access the things that were important to them in their communities, such as their local shops and places of worship.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation. The provider had not used the data and information their systems provided to identify areas of learning and improvement. Despite information evidencing concerns relating to people’s call times, the provider did not respond by making the necessary changes to drive improvements.