Apex Prime Care Poole

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the service 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 good governance.

This service scored 54 (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 aims, objectives and principles in place which were based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights. However,we found the provider did not always have alistening culture that promoted trust and understanding.

The provider sent monthly staff surveys and completed individual supervisions, performance checks and staff meetings. However, staff told us they did not always felt listened to by the wider management team.

One staff member told us, “Staff have occasional in-office group meetings, a couple of times a year, concerns can be raised then. Concerns can also be raised via email but sometimes you do not get much of a response from it rather than if it was raised in person.” Another staff member said, “We can send emails, but they're either ignored or take ages to get a response. A few meetings have taken place but without any significant result.” Some staff felt they were not always treated fairly, and the provider did not always promote an inclusive culture.

Staff found the registered manager approachable.

Staff told us they could approach the registered manager. A staff member said, “I feel the registered manager is approachable and I am comfortable talking to her.”

The registered manager said they joined provider forums, read CQC updates and attended various training to stay up to date with changes in policy.

The provider had an up-to-date Whistleblowing Policy in place. The provider had systems to enable staff and others to speak up if they had any concerns. However, staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

A staff member told us, “I have opportunities to raise concerns to my management but unfortunately not everything gets dealt with.” Staff confirmed they knew who to approach to report their concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce.

One staff member said, “I definitely believe that our workplace is inclusive and free from discrimination. Our workforce is very diverse. I highly praise the company for its diversity andmaking it so inclusive as we can all help and learn from each other.”

Another staff member told us, “I strongly believe my workplace is a safe and supportive place to work. As much as I know staff are free from discrimination, I have been treated very well by my management and colleagues ever since I joined and I am happy to be here.”

Staff members confirmed the provider had made reasonable adjustments to their schedules when asked. The provider sent monthly surveys to staff members to gather feedback on the service.

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

Governance systems were not consistently operating effectively and had not always identified the shortfalls found within this inspection.

For example, the provider did not have effective oversight of essential training, and this meant staff did not always have in date training relevant to people’s needs. The provider had also failed to identify formal complaints were not always investigated and replied to in line with their policy. Additionally the provider had failed to identify conflicting information relating to people’s consent and MCA documentation. This meant the provider could not be assured they were working in line with the principles of the MCA.

Services we regulate have a statutory responsibility to notify CQC about certain events that occur in a service. We found the provider had not always submitted notifications as required by law. The registered manager told us some notifications had not been successfully submitted as they had remained saved to draft and so had not been sent. Notifications are important because they support us to monitor the services we regulate.

The service did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people.

The service took part in regular meetings with external stakeholders in order share information and learning. We received mixed feedback from health and social care professionals regarding how effectively the service communicated with them.

One health and social care professional said, “We have found it difficult to get a response via the phone so mostly send them emails however these do not always get replied to.”

Another health and social care professional told us the service did not always raise concerns in a timely manner, for example regarding people’s time specific medicines or when visits are no longer required, with external stakeholders.

However, some health and social care professionals stated they communicated well with the provider and said, “I have found Apex to be a trustworthy, reliable and responsive provider.”
 

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

Leaders did not always encourage staff to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation and actively invest time to listen and engage.

Monthly quality assurance processes and systems had not always been effective at identifying areas of improvement we found during this inspection. This meant potential risks to people were not always identified and lessons were not always learned. This meant opportunities to drive improvement had been missed.