Embrace 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 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 71 (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.

The provider had a business plan which outlined shared goals and visions. Team meetings were completed regularly and discussed values and goals. Audits were completed regularly and we saw evidence that changes were made because of what people said.

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 always did so with integrity, openness, and honesty.

Staff and people receiving support were positive about the management team. One person told us, “I’m so happy.” One staff member told us, “They’re [management] very good, very supportive. Always there if I need to ask questions.” Another said, “When we lost a client, they contacted me every day to make sure I was ok.”

The registered manager was involved during staff induction and remained in contact with staff to assess and support them.

The registered manager conducted 3-monthly audits for each person receiving support, staff confirmed that they also visit to complete spot checks.

A relative of one person receiving support told us, “The manager visits once a month to make sure my family member is ok.”

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

The provider had processes to record and action complaints and compliments that were available to staff, people receiving support and their families.

Team meeting minutes showed that staff were given the opportunity to speak up and to have their voices heard to drive improvement.

In one instance a staff member’s practice had been challenged following concerns being raised. This was challenged and actioned in the spirit of improving service delivery.

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.

Recruitment files showed that consideration had been made to equality and diversity within the workforce.

All staff had attended equality and diversity training in an appropriate timescale.

Acknowledgement had been given to staff wellbeing,; we saw evidence that staff had reasonable adjustments to working agreed to accommodate physical needs.

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 office was well staffed and organised, roles were clear, and each member of staff was able to tell us what their responsibilities were and who would take responsibility in their absence.

One member of staff showed us how calls were overseen, ensuring that staff turn up on time, remain for the entire call time and how absences and cancellations were addressed.

The registered manager understood their statutory and regulatory responsibilities when reporting incidents, accidents, and safeguarding concerns.

The business contingency plan outlined what steps would be taken in case of emergency to ensure the critical functions of the business remained viable.

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.

People and their families were considered in all aspects of support provision. With consent from people receiving support, families and friends were invited to take part in support planning and were given access to daily support notes. One person we spoke to invited a family member to accompany them during their interview; another chose a friend.

The provider promoted a culture of openness and transparency.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The training provided to the staff team was generally good, one staff member told us the registered manager supported them when they had difficulties in accessing courses.

We noted that some members of the management team did not have competency checks to administer medication, but it was recorded that all support staff did. We also noted that some mandatory training was missing from the training schedule, though this was arranged to take place soon after our visit.

Quality assurance systems were in place to encourage continual improvement.

There were systems to reward staff for innovation and improvement.