My Homecare Barnet

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 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 changed to inadequate. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The provider was again in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service.

This service scored 29 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider had not established systems to monitor and assess the culture of the service. They had not ensured the staff employed understood the person’s needs. At times there was a closed culture at the provider level, the provider was not always transparent with us during the assessment when we asked questions about the staffing plans in place and staffing numbers.

The provider did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There were times when the provider was not transparent with us during the inspection, in relation to staffing. The provider was unable to evidence any of their assessment of the quality of the care provided. They had not always understood what the CQC requires them to do.

People did feel they could speak up, but there was a risk their voice would not be heard.

The member of staff and the person’s relative did feel they could speak with the provider. However, further work was required for the provider to create effective systems for staff and people to do this. For example, staff had irregular supervision and no team meetings. The provider could not evidence initial reviews of the person’s care or their invitation to provide feedback.

The provider did not value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had not completed any right to work checks for overseas staff. This undermined their rights and protection. The provider did not have systems in place to promote the well-being of their workforce.

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

The provider did not have any systems to monitor and assess the quality of the care provided. The provider could not evidence any audits of the care provided. Nor could they evidence any assessments relating to the practice and skills of staff. The provider did not have any systems in place to carry out this work.

The provider’s own governance approach was inadequate and failed to identify the issues and concerns we had identified as part of this assessment. For example, the recruitment, training of staff, their own out of date training, polices which contained incorrect information and had not been reviewed in years. The provider did not have an effective understanding of the importance of assessing the care provided and making plans for improvements.

The provider wanted to increase their business with more people using their service. However, the provider was ill-prepared to manage more people and staff safely and effectively.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider was not organised and prepared to do this with professionals when this time came. They had not sought the views and input of fellow providers to assist their own assessment of the service and support improvements.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider lacked an understanding of their legal requirements. No assessment of the quality of the care provided had taken place. The provider could not evidence this or effectively talk us through how they did this, with supportive examples of when they did this. There was no active action plan to respond to the breaches of the regulations from the last inspection and no ongoing improvement plan in place to show their assessment and focus on the development which was required of this service.