Comfort Care

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 remained 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 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 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 and leaders all spoke about their commitment to providing high quality care for people in their own homes. Staff told us, “I believe the focus [of the service] is on providing safe, respectful care.”

The provider 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. People, relatives and staff understood how to contact managers at the service for advice and support. People spoke positively about the manager and how easy it was to contact them. A relative told us, “It is always easy to get in touch with someone, any time of the day or night.” Staff told us they felt supported in their roles.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff were supported to speak up and were regularly asked for their feedback on the service. All staff had regular access to 1-1 supervision meetings and were also provided with training and information about how to whistle blow should they feel the need to do 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. Staff spoke positively about their experience of working for the service and the support they received. During the assessment no issues regarding equality, diversity and inclusion were raised.

The provider 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. The service undertook regular checks on the quality of care. These included spot checks of staff practice and competency, audits of care records and regular requests for feedback from people, relatives and staff. The information gathered from these activities was used to continually improve the service and support staff development.

The provider 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 partner agencies and understood the roles and responsibilities of health and social care providers in their area. Where required, the service shared information and sought advice and support appropriately from these services.

The provider 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. The service was proactive in exploring areas for improvement and regularly sought feedback from people and staff to ensure current care delivery was appropriate. Where changes were needed, the service implemented these quickly. A relative told us, “We [relative and managers] are constantly in dialogue about [relative’s] needs, they change their practice depending on [relative’s] needs.”