Verity Healthcare - Milton Keynes

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 provider had failed to ensure governance processes were effective. The systems in place had not resulted in the service being maintained to a safe and appropriate standard. Areas for improvement were not identified, and improvements were not made when required. Staff told us the provider was supportive and accessible, and they were able to raise any concerns they had with them.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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 provider acknowledged that improvements needed to be made to the oversight and governance of the service. However, insufficient action had been taken since our last inspection to maintain appropriate standards at the service.

The provider had failed to ensure governance processes were effective. The systems in place had not resulted in the service being maintained to a safe and appropriate standard. Areas for improvement were not identified, and improvements were not made when required.

There was poor governance and a lack of ongoing monitoring of care documentation. People's care plans and risk assessments contained inaccurate and incomplete information about people's needs. When these concerns were raised with the provider not enough action was taken to make the required improvements. There was a risk people would not receive appropriate care.

Insufficient oversight was in place for complex care such as enteral nutrition. Care documentation stated that regular audits of feeding procedures and staff competency should be in place. Evidence of this oversight was requested as part of the inspection but was not available.

Appropriate oversight was not in place for staff competency to administer enteral nutrition. The provision of enteral feeding by care staff should be undertaken as a delegated healthcare task and as such it must be overseen by the healthcare professional who has delegated this responsibility. Training in enteral feeding had been provided by an external training company, who verified staff competency as part of the training course, there was no ongoing oversight by a healthcare professional.

The system in place for managing compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 resulted in service users’ mental capacity being assessed when this is inappropriate. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for children under the age of 16 and adults who had mental capacity and had signed their own consent to care forms.

Staff told us they were supported by the provider and systems were in place for the management and oversight of the service, staff received regular supervision with their line manager. However, during this assessment, we identified that systems of oversight were not being implemented effectively and there were concerns within the service. These had not been identified or acted upon in a timely manner.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.