Alchita Care Limited of Bradford

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 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. The service was no longer in breach of regulation regarding good governance.

This service scored 75 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was a shared values policy in place. The service had additional policies in place which supported equality, diversity and inclusion. Leaders in the service told us the service’s values are, “To provide compassionate care, we value our client’s and respect their dignity.” Staff within the service had a shared understanding on the values of the service. One staff member told us, “We look after our communities.” People using the service felt there was a positive culture of care. One relative told us, “The [service] has good values, I have never had any issues.”

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders implemented robust systems and processes in the service, to enable thorough oversight and overall monitoring. The leaders of the service demonstrated compassion towards staff members and people using the service. Staff members told us leaders demonstrated a culture of openness and support. One staff member told us, “[Leaders in the service] are very good, they give us training, if anything happens, they tell us they can support us.” People using the service told us leaders showed good capability in their role. One relative told us, “I really like all the staff, and I think it is very well led. They are very flexible in meeting our needs”.

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

The service had freedom to speak up and whistleblowing policies in place. There were systems in place to support people and staff to speak up, for example, feedback surveys. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of whistleblowing processes and felt able to speak with managers if they had any concerns. When asked if staff would feel comfortable speaking up to leaders in the service, one staff member told us, “Yes I do, this would be listened to and action, they [leaders] always listen.” People using the service told us there were several opportunities to speak up regarding their care. One relative told us, “We regularly receive surveys to provide feedback, but feedback is really ongoing through texts and telephone calls.”

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

There were robust systems and processes in place to promote staff equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff recruitment processes showed a diverse range of staff. Staff told us they felt there was a diverse workforce. People using the service told us they received support from staff from different backgrounds. One relative told us, “[my relative] has a mixture of male and female carers, and either is okay. Most of the carers are Asian or African dissent, there are no communication issues.”

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There were robust systems in place to promote good governance within the service. Audits were regularly completed by leaders within the service. There were quality oversight assurance documents and business continuity plans in place, to monitor for emerging patterns and trends requiring improvement. Professionals told us there were good governance systems in place, which enabled information to be shared securely to promote best practice. One professional told us, “I have supported one person who was sent home from hospital with 1 carer and it was quickly identified by [the service] the person may need 2 carers to reduce risk of falls. I would possibly not have been alerted to the need without [the service] identifying this.”

The service 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 worked well with local communities and partners to ensure people were provided the correct care, and to promote improvement. For example, requesting additional training where needed from health partners. Professionals told us the service demonstrated good partnership working with them. One professional told us, “Contact whether face to face or email has been prompt considerate and professional.”

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

There were systems and processes in place to promote innovation and learning throughout the service. For example, leaders completed regular audits and improvement plans, to identify emerging risks within the service, to promote improvement. The service actively reviews its processes to ensure the most efficient and safe systems are in place. For example, reviewing the electronic care systems in place. Leaders in the service told us there was a positive drive for improvement. One leader told us, “We are accommodating to any improvements. Where there are complaints, we implement any changes needed. We also communicate with clients and staff to see if they can suggest how we can do things better”.