Oiza Healthcare 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider had a statement of purpose in place; however, it did not accurately reflect the service being delivered. For example, it did not state that the service supported adults or outline the provider’s vision to support people with a learning disability. However, the registered manager and office staff were able to clearly articulate their vision during the assessment and demonstrated they worked in line with their values to ensure people received good, safe care. All relatives told us they would recommend Oiza Healthcare limited to others. One relative told us, “I would, without hesitation.” This meant the service had a clear and consistent ethos in practice, even though this was not yet fully reflected in their formal documentation.

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 openness and honesty.

The registered manager was a qualified clinician who had a good understanding of their responsibility to ensure people received safe care. Throughout the assessment they demonstrated compassion towards the people they supported, their relatives and staff. Systems and processes were in place to ensure information was shared appropriately with other professionals, such as the CQC and the local authority. All feedback we received from relatives and staff was positive. One relative told us, ‘I would recommend this agency. They are just so good, so professional. I don't know what we'd do without them.’ This meant people benefited from a compassionate service where leadership promoted safe practice, effective communication and positive experiences for those using and working in the service.

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

All staff who provided feedback told us they felt comfortable with raising concerns. One staff member told us, “I would feel comfortable raising concerns with the manager because they are approachable and encourage open communication.”

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 told us they felt respected and valued, and that the organisation promoted a culture where individual differences were recognised and supported.

There was an equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place which provided clear guidance on expectations and standards. Staff had completed equality and diversity training. This meant people were supported by a workforce that was well‑informed, respectful and confident in meeting the diverse needs of the individuals using the service.

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.

There was a range of auditing processes and governance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Audits covered all aspects of the service, including people’s care plans, accidents and incidents, safeguarding concerns and satisfaction surveys. Regular spot checks were carried out with staff to ensure they continued to meet the expectations of the service. People or relatives were also contacted weekly for ‘check‑in’ telephone calls to monitor the quality of their care. These audits, systems and processes enabled the registered manager to have an oversight of the service and peoples experience. This meant the provider had effective systems in place to identify issues, respond promptly to concerns and ensure people consistently received safe, good‑quality care.

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’s care plans and daily notes showed that staff worked collaboratively with people’s GPs, pharmacies, social workers and the district nursing team to ensure their health and wellbeing needs were met. This meant people benefited from, multi‑agency care that supported safe care.

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.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to learning and continuous improvement, making effective use of the electronic care planning system to monitor and review the quality of care. Quality assurance processes were in place, and feedback was acted upon to drive necessary improvements. Staff discussed learning and development during team meetings, and leaders communicated updates through messaging functions and observations of practice to ensure staff remained informed and supported.