North London Community Care Agency 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 governance.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for 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 had felt supported and encouraged to speak up. Staff had access to the freedom to speak up policy to support them in doing so.

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 registered manager told us, "We have a multicultural team representing 10 different nationalities."
A staff member reported that when they requested flexible working arrangements, the service supported their request. This approach removes barriers related to caregiving, health conditions, or other personal circumstances, ensuring equal opportunities for all staff members.
 

The service 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’s governance systems for auditing the service were not effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement to ensure that people were not placed at risk of receiving unsafe and inappropriate care.
The provider’s systems to ensure staff were appropriately trained and supported were not effective, as some staff had not completed specialist and refresher training to develop the skills and knowledge required to care for people safely.
There was no effective system for record keeping in place. Care recording systems and processes were not established or operated effectively to ensure compliance. Care plan did not always reflect the information gathered during initial assessment and changes in people's care and support needs, which may impact the quality and continuity of care.
There was no system in place to ensure robust and safe recruitment practices, to make sure that all staff, including volunteers, were suitably experienced, competent, and able to carry out their role.
However, the provider had a business continuity plan in place to help ensure the service could continue running during and after any significant disruptions.
 

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

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.