Allfor Care Croydon

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 inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At our last assessment, we found the service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance, duty of candour and statement of purpose. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

This service scored 75 (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.

People received their care and support from staff who were encouraged to share a common vision for the service. Speaking with us about care staff, a relative told us, “They are nice people. We would recommend the current carers.” Speaking with us about office-based staff, a person told us, “I’m always able to get through to the office staff. I think the coordinators have always been extremely helpful.”

The provider created several leading roles called ‘champions’ to promote the organisation’s values and culture. Champions promoted good practice in areas such as dignity, dementia, pressure area care and infection control. They facilitated discussions among staff in regular meetings. These included weekly office meetings, weekly governance meetings and monthly care staff team meetings. This meant the provider encouraged an open culture and effective communication to promote a shared direction.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care 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 staff told us the leadership at Allfor Care Croydon had improved. A person told us, “I think the management are trying to change… I think things are improving.” Staff told us the creation of the post of branch manager had been impactful and positive. A member of staff told us the branch manager was, “Very efficient. They are on top of things. There is a meeting every week and I love it as we can get to know them. They ask us to be open and discuss anything. They know what they are doing.”

The new branch manager was supported in their role by the registered manager and external quality consultants. They led an office-based team which included field supervisors who managed care staff. Since our last assessment, the provider had supported field supervisors to develop specific skills around their roles. For example, they received training in writing care plans in a person-centred way and supervising moving and handling practices. This meant the skills and knowledge of office-based staff was expanding and improving.

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

At our last assessment, we found whistleblowing was not consistently discussed at team meetings and we received mixed views from staff regarding their confidence in speaking up. At this assessment, we found whistleblowing was discussed in individual, team and leadership meetings and staff felt confident speaking up.

The provider undertook quarterly staff surveys, which regularly achieved a 75% response rate. Leaders reviewed the responses and took action in response to findings. For example, following feedback from staff, leaders reduced the travel time between care visits by deploying staff to support people who lived closer to each other. This meant the provider made improvements following feedback from staff.

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.

People came from a range of national, cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds and were supported by a staff team which reflected their diversity. The provider’s updated anti-discriminatory policies reflected its culture and ethos. Staff told us they had not experienced discrimination and had not observed discriminatory practice. A member of staff told us, “I am treated fairly and equitably.” When required, office-based staff matched care staff to people to support specific needs. For example, people who spoke Gujarati and Tamil were supported by staff who spoke these languages.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last assessment, we found the provider’s quality assurance systems did not always detect and address shortfalls. At this assessment, we found the provider’s quality monitoring processes had improved, leading to shortfalls being identified and rectified.

Since our last assessment, the provider had contracted the service of consultants to help improve quality assurance systems, leadership oversight and to support the provider to implement its service improvement plan.

The provider had clear roles and responsibilities to support the delivery of people’s care and support. Care staff were supported and managed by care supervisors, field supervisors and the office-based allocations team. These roles were led and coordinated by the deputy manager, branch manager and registered manager. Additional office-based roles included quality assurance, electronic monitoring system monitoring officer and lead staff for medicines, GP liaison and dignity champions.

Leaders met regularly in governance meetings, where accident and incidents, quality assurance and progress with the provider’s service improvement plan were reviewed. This meant leaders maintained oversight of quality and developments at the service.

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 provider worked with a range of services and organisations to ensure people’s needs were met. People were supported with referrals to health and social care professionals, and when required, staff supported people to attend subsequent appointments. A person told us, “When I have a hospital appointment, I arrange for the carer to come earlier, and the agency are always helpful in arranging that.” Office-based staff liaised with GPs and pharmacists who provided services including information and training.

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.

At our last assessment, we found the service’s monitoring systems did not enable the provider to identify common issues to help them to make service-wide improvements. As a result, the provider was in breach of multiple regulations. At this assessment, we found the provider had contracted consultants and with them developed a service improvement plan. The service improvement plan detailed the time-based actions the provider intended to carry out to rectify shortfalls. The provider followed this plan, completed the actions required, and audited the outcomes. This led to service-wide improvements, which meant the provider was no longer in regulatory breach.