Tipton Home Care 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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection 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.

This service scored 68 (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 and human rights, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. People and their relatives felt listened to by the service. Everyone felt their views were confident these were valued and respected. People were encouraged to provide feedback on the care they received, and this helped shape their service. Staff were encouraged to complete a staff satisfaction survey. The responses were being collated at the time of this inspection and had yet to be fed back to staff.

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. The management team had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. People and relatives found the management team to be engaging and responsive. People had contact details to enable them to seek phone support even out of normal hours. One person told us they needed to raise a concern regarding the interactions of a couple of staff members. They found the management team to be responsive to their concerns and ways of working with them were changed to their satisfaction. They went on to say they found this to be supportive.

Staff provided differing views on whether they felt able to speak up or if they felt valued. Some staff provided negative feedback regarding their experiences as an employee. We explored this further with them and although there were systems in place to feedback or to engage with a freedom to speak up process, some still felt unable to do so. This resulted in them feeling devalued. A theme which emerged throughout the conversations with staff was regarding the allocation of annual leave and how some had lost their allocated time off. Some staff reported that they were not listened to, or their concerns were dismissed by the management team. Conversely, other staff felt they were valued, listened to by the management team. This inconsistency in staff experience was fed back to the management team who committee to reviewing their ways of engagement with staff to ensure all felt valued and respected as individuals. All staff have information on how to raise concerns including contact details of the local authority and the Care Quality Commission. Staff were supported by policies including the freedom to speak up and whistle blowing policy to encourage openness and engagement.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. Despite perceived inequalities in some aspects of working experienced by some staff members people received care from a staff team who generally felt included. One staff member expressed how owing to their changes in circumstances their mental health and been impacted and they found certain aspects of work difficult. The management team supported them and adapted their work to encourage them to be fully involved once more. They felt this was respectful to them and their personal circumstances.

The provider did not always have clear systems of accountability or good governance. For example, their existing checks failed to identify or rectify the lack of information in their guidance for “As required medication”. Checks failed to identify the lack of detail in capturing people’s planning for future care. However, they did have checks in other areas of their care delivery. For example, regular checks were completed on the administration of medicines to ensure people received them as prescribed. Staff told us they received regular spot checks to ensure they arrived on time and provided care in accordance with people’s wishes.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. People were supported by staff and the management team to engage with their local communities and partners. This included GP’s, District Nurses and others involved in their care and support. This supported them to remain in control of their own care and supported their own independence.

The service focused on learning and improvements They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe and effective practice. The management team reviewed incidents, accidents or dangerous occurrences to see if anything could be done differently. They shared learning across other parts of the organisation to ensure lessons learnt were cascaded to others to help improve care. For example, following feedback from people and a review of their processes the management team recruited a field supervisor to support with spot checks to help ensure people received a positive experience of care.