Home Instead Senior 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 the same. 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 79 (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 spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager and leaders and described them as approachable and supportive. One staff member told us, “I feel the support we provide is good, but there is also room for improvement if needed. This company will make improvements if required and they include staff and our opinion”. Systems and processes promoted a listening culture, equality and diversity were recognised and supported.

The provider had inclusive leaders 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 and relatives knew the registered manager and were able to share positive stories about their engagement. They described the registered manager as, “wonderful, friendly and having the right attitude”. One person told us, “They are lovely and suggest carers for our needs. Always in the background. It’s a very friendly company. I can contact them if needed”. Staff told us the registered manager was supportive of staff development, and they could put forward ideas and they would be listened to. There was a stable and consistent management team to ensure the service was well managed.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff had opportunities to make suggestions and contribute to the development of the service at staff meetings, surveys and through the provider's supervision procedure. People and relatives had the opportunity to share their views of the service through surveys. The registered manager and leaders visited people’s homes to complete spot checks and reviews and people knew them well. Staff told us the registered manager was supportive and listened to them should they raise any concerns. One staff member told us, “I would go to the manager if things went wrong, I feel very confident to talk with them and know they will support me, and they would listen to any concerns”. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. The duty of candour is to be open and transparent, and it sets out specific guideline's providers must follow if things go wrong with care and treatment. The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place.

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. The service promoted an inclusive and fair culture, and all staff we spoke with told us they were treated equally and were happy to work as a team. Staff had received training in equality and diversity.

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 provider had several internal quality audits to monitor, review and improve the service to ensure they meet their regulatory requirements. Where needed the appropriate actions, amendments and reviews had been taken. For example, where it had been identified through a review of daily documentation a person had been losing weight, actions had been taken to arrange a review of their care and support needs and the relevant external professionals contacted to be part of a multidisciplinary review. Staff also received training of food fortification, meal planning and hydration.

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. One professional told us, “They provide a very good service, there’s been transparency, the family are involved in the care and its reliable. The service worked with external health professionals who all gave us positive feedback about their collaborative working. Relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes and the service was flexible when their needs changed, or when they required additional support to attend health appointments. The service facilitated a community monthly lunch club which invited people, their relatives and friends to get together.

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 and research. Managers and staff recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure people received good quality safe care and support. The provider had recently invested in a new initiative of a hydrating snack to support people who are more likely to experience dehydration. The registered manager told us this had been implemented to people who were at risk and staff had received the relevant training. The registered manager told us they had received positive feedback from people, staff and relatives and there had been noted improvements in people’s alertness and well being. The provider completed a quarterly gap analysis of all reported events (e.g. falls, medication errors, missed visits, mobility issues, wellbeing concerns). The audit identified, recurrent causes or person risk factors, high-risk time periods or locations, gaps in training, communication, or protocols and service-wide patterns which required attention. Lessons learnt practices were completed after an event and information and any actions taken were shared with the staff team.