Ivy Care (Reading & Newbury)

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 the governance at the service.

This service scored 61 (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 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.

Staff meetings were used as an opportunity to refresh knowledge and discuss ideas to improve the quality of care. Staff told us, “The office team always keep us updated daily with our clients and I feel very supported, and I know what is going on with daily updates.”

However, we did not always see that people’s care reflected adequate guidance. Quality audits and action plans were designed to focus on learning and improvement, but these did not identify the deficiencies we found during our assessment.

The provider had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Professionals we spoke with told us leaders were, “Particularly skilled in their job and will try and compromise with the more challenging clients, so that support is still carried out. Other staff [carers], from what I’ve seen work well with clients [people] who seem happy to receive their support.”

Staff we spoke with felt supported by the management, we heard, “The management of Ivy care are really understanding, offering you advice, training and support. To provide a good service to the clients. Whenever you need a support, whenever you ask for some things to be done they are there, they will take time to explain.”

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

Staff we spoke with told us, “Managers and office staff are always available if I need advice, in cases of emergency. They have excellent communication, and they go above and beyond to assist if there is help needed” and “I would be very confident in raising any concerns with the manager or provider because they are approachable and willing to assist.”

Our inspection identified staff did not always actively raise concerns about people they supported, and there were concerns regarding the communication style towards staff in team meetings.

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 employed staff with different nationalities and backgrounds. Staff with impairments were employed and supported to carry out their roles effectively

Staff were matched to clients, we heard from people who use the service. “He also has matched me really well with carers that match who I am as a person.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Systems and processes to assess, monitor and mitigate risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people were not fully effective. The systems had not identified all the areas for improvement detailed in other sections of this report, which we found during this assessment.

For example, care record audits had not identified the shortfalls in people’s care records. Action plans from audits were in place, where actions had been marked as complete, we identified issues were still present. Medication audits had reviewed some of the same records the assessment team reviewed, and the services findings were not always accurate. This meant we were not assured that auditing processes were robust.

We found improvements were needed to ensure individual risks for people were identified and action taken to mitigate risks and supporting people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager was transparent and receptive to our findings throughout the assessment and told us how they would take action to make improvements.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

Staff we spoke with told us, “I've participated to the annual social services assessment, and I give a lot of information about service user. I have a positive discussion with the social worker, and [they] give me good advice.”

Professionals told us, “Where information relating to service users is requested, this has been provided by the Registered Manager in a timely manner.” Referrals to professionals had been raised, issues were resolved and the care package was adjusted, and the provider communicated effectively, supporting people to reengage with care.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

The service had recently introduced a new electronic care planning system and acknowledged they were still developing their knowledge about how this could be best used to improve service delivery.

Management kept a record of lessons learnt. However, the lessons learnt completed, often lacked detail and did not include how improvements would be made or monitored for effectiveness.

There was evidence of learning from serious incidents. Professionals told us, “The provider has implemented a number of changes to risk assessments, ensured all staff have undertaken training offered by Royal Berkshire Fire Rescue Service and also ensured that where appropriate, service users have been referred for a ‘safe well visit’ by the fire service to aid with risk management and fire prevention.”