FiNN Homecare Ltd - Head Office

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 36 (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 strategy for developing their direction of business. Despite the provider employing an external agency to identify improvements, no improvements had taken place.

The provider did not take consistent and timely action in response to risks and concerns as they had no processes in place to identify risk.

Staff meetings, supervisions and spot checks had been implemented however, these had not been completed for all staff and had not identified where additional support or learning was required.

Reviews of people’s care plans did not demonstrate a fully inclusive and collaborative process when developing their care plan. The provider had not prioritised safe and high-quality care or the promotion of a culture focused on learning and improvement.

Staff were not trained to carry out their role, risk assessment and care planning processes did not fully reflect and acknowledge people’s diverse needs and required further development.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Leaders did not have the skills or knowledge to lead effectively, and were not documented as having the necessary training as they were not included on the training matrix.

During our assessment the registered manager engaged with the onsite visits and responded to our requests for information. The registered manager was receptive to our feedback and took some steps to immediately improve shortfalls which we identified during the assessment. However, the registered manager demonstrated a lack of understanding and knowledge to make the necessary improvements needed to meet the minimum fundamental standards of care provision for people.

The provider had not ensured a thorough, safe and effective recruitment and training process was in place that met regulatory and legislative requirements. This put people at risk of receiving care and support from unsuitable staff.

During the last assessments, we identified there were no audits in place in order to ensure oversight of the service, the provider had failed to implement audits.

People and relatives spoke positively overall about the management team and told us they were approachable. Staff told us they felt supported and valued by the management team and understood their roles and responsibilities.

The provider’s approach in gathering feedback from people to give them the opportunity to share any concerns they had was not fully inclusive.

Staff told us they could raise concerns with the registered manager at any time and felt they would be listened to and actions taken. However, where staff had provided anonymous feedback in the past around requiring further training, no action had been taken.

There was no formal process in place to collect staff feedback to continuously improve the service.

The provider employed a diverse staff team including different ethnic backgrounds and genders.

Staff did not receive regular opportunities to provide feedback about the service. There was inconsistent evidence of team meetings and supervisions to show staff were included in decision making and improvements were required to ensure equity in how staff across the service working in the service were viewed and treated.

Live in staff were not checked upon, and there was no documented support in place for these members of staff.

The provider had failed to implement a robust process to assess staff knowledge and skills as there were no competency assessments in place.

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 had failed to operate effective governance systems. The provider had not identified the issues we found during the assessment as they had not conducted audits. This had placed people at an increased level of risk as there were no governance systems in place to identify the shortfalls identified during the assessment.

Audits had not been introduced following the previous inspection. Notifications were not always raised with the commission. The provider had not assured themselves staff were trained to carry out safe care, and recruitment practices were not effective. Feedback had not been obtained in order to continuously improve the service. Supervisions in place did not identify further actions around training and support required.

The provider had been made of aware of concerns around people’s care and assessments, staffing and training, prior to our assessment. They had taken no action to ensure the people received safe care.

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

The provider had systems and processes in place to record contact with health and social care professionals and would make referrals where appropriate. However, where people had accessed services, these assessments had not been included within care planning.

One person’s care planning referenced for staff to follow guidance in place from district nurses around catheter care, however this guidance was not included within the person’s documentation.

A lack of oversight and monitoring at the service impacted the effectiveness of collaborative working and sharing of information, as learning and quality improvement was not routinely taking place.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Our assessment found widespread and significant shortfalls which the provider had not identified and addressed through their quality management systems.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure continuous learning and improvement at the service. The service did not encourage staff reflection and learning from events and incidents. Therefore, discussion on where things had gone wrong, and what needed to happen to prevent such events happening again did not take place.