Careuk247 Home Care Cambridgeshire

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 governance at the service.

This service scored 62 (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 understood the provider’s expectations of them and spoke positively about the importance of delivering person-centred care. Leaders had a clear understanding of the service's priorities and were focused on making sure systems and resources were in place to support safe and effective care provision. Leaders told us they wanted to ensure the service was well organised and operating effectively before considering any further growth.

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.

The registered manager was passionate about leading the service and was committed to achieving positive outcomes for people. The senior team demonstrated a good understanding of the people using the service and were committed to undertaking the required actions to meet regulatory requirements.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and described them as approachable and supportive. They told us they felt comfortable seeking advice, raising concerns and discussing issues affecting people's care and support. The registered manager responded to the findings of the assessment and demonstrated a commitment to making the necessary improvements.

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

The provider had a Freedom to Speak Up policy in place, which gave staff guidance on how to raise concerns and helped promote an open culture within the service. Staff feedback indicated they understood the importance of speaking up and felt able to do so without fear of negative consequences.

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 the culture of the service and told us they felt valued, respected and included. They said leaders encouraged open communication and provided opportunities for staff to share their views and experiences.

Staff told us they were encouraged to take part in team meetings and discussions about the service. This helped create an inclusive working environment where staff could contribute ideas, receive important updates and feel involved in the delivery and development of the service.

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

The assessment identified weaknesses in governance and quality assurance processes, which had not effectively identified or addressed concerns in a timely manner. Improvements were needed to strengthen oversight, auditing and monitoring arrangements to ensure risks and areas for improvement were recognised and acted upon promptly.

Recruitment processes also required improvement, including obtaining full employment and education histories and strengthening interview procedures to better assess candidates' suitability. Staff training compliance needed to be improved, particularly in relation to specific health conditions, assessments, and mandatory learning disability and autism training.

Concerns were identified regarding call scheduling, including insufficient travel time between visits, shortened calls without clear explanations, and reports of late visits. For example, 1 person told us, “[Staff] don’t stay the time that’s stated, but I still get charged.” Staff working hours also required closer monitoring, with some staff working excessive hours, raising concerns about wellbeing and the potential impact on care quality.

Overall, provider systems had not identified or addressed all of the issues found during the assessment. While actions were taken in response to the concerns raised, further work was needed to ensure improvements were fully embedded and supported by effective ongoing oversight.

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 with a range of partner organisations involved in people's care and support. Staff shared relevant information with other professionals and services, helping to ensure people's needs were supported across different settings.

Examples of partnership working included communication with day centres, healthcare professionals and other agencies involved in people's care. This helped promote continuity of care, supported coordinated working and ensured important information was shared to meet people's needs and support positive outcomes.

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.

Governance and quality assurance systems had not been fully effective in identifying the shortfalls found during this assessment. As a result, appropriate action had not always been taken in a timely way to address concerns and drive improvements. For example, the provider had not ensured staff completed appropriate training to support autistic people and people with a learning disability, despite supporting people with these needs.

However, the provider responded positively to the feedback received during the assessment and took prompt action to address identified concerns. This included arranging relevant training for staff and reviewing existing systems and processes to support improvement.

Leaders were also considering changes to strengthen the service, including reviewing care planning systems and pre-assessment processes to ensure people's needs were identified, recorded and reviewed more effectively. These actions demonstrated a willingness to learn from feedback and make improvements, although further work was needed to ensure changes were embedded and sustained over time.

Whilst the provider responded to the concerns identified during the assessment, we could not be assured that improvements had been fully embedded or that effective oversight arrangements were in place to sustain these changes and reduce the risk of recurrence.