Solace Care Solutions 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 and there was a breach of the legal requirement in relation to governance.

At this assessment the rating has remained as 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 continued to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 36 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, human rights and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider did not have effective processes in place to demonstrate they listened to and acted upon concerns and suggestions enabling them to drive improvements, ensuring a transparent culture.

The provider who was also the registered manager was not always knowledgeable to lead effectively. The providers processes in place for monitoring and improving the quality of the service were not effective. We identified multiple areas of concern and breaches of regulations during the assessment, which had not been identified by the provider.

The provider did not always foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The complaints information we reviewed and information from health care professionals showed people did not always feel listened to. However, a staff member felt they would be able to report concerns if they had any and have no issue working for the provider.

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 raised no concerns about discrimination at work and had no worries about working for the provider.

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, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. The governance and management systems in place continued to require improvement.

The providers governance and audit systems were not sufficiently robust as they had not picked up the shortfalls identified at this assessment and had failed to ensure a consistently good service was delivered. The provider had not always submitted required notifications, regarding notifiable incidents in accordance with their legal responsibilities. We identified one incident where leaders had not notified the Care Quality Commission about. Feedback from a health and social care professional confirmed that they were not always notified of incidents.

The provider’s arrangements for the availability of records were not effective. The provider was not able to access the required records including care and recruitment records easily. Records were either missing or incomplete which did not enable the provider to oversee the management of the service appropriately. The provider told us this was due to a change of the computer system and documents becoming corrupt in the process. However, we found no action plan was in place to resolve this matter, once the issues came to light.

The provider had a small staff team and maintained regular contact with them. A staff member stated they were supported by the provider. The provider was also involved in delivering care to people, this meant that they had a good knowledge of people’s care needs. However, this did limit their time to deal with management tasks related to the effective running of the service. The provider confirmed they used satisfaction surveys to capture people and their relative’s feedback on the service provided. We saw a sample of surveys which showed people were satisfied with the care received.

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

Experiences of health and social care professionals was that the provider did not always work with them collaboratively and how engagement with the provider was not always efficient. Also, that information requests were not always responded to in a timely manner. A health and social care professional said when making information requests, ‘Engagement from their (Provider) side has stalled.’

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