Epic Care Services Bradford

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 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 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 service had a clear vision, direction, and culture that was shared within the organisation. The culture was positive, compassionate and promoted trust and understanding between the service and people using the service. Staff members comments included the registered manager was very approachable, very friendly and always available and willing to help whenever they are needed. The registered manager had developed a positive, inclusive and open culture within the service where all people, relatives and staff were confident to share their experiences. Staff wanted to learn and do their best to help people with their care and sought help and advice if they were not sure from the registered manager. The registered manager operated an on-call system to be available in an emergency or if staff needed guidance.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities in the role. They led by example for staff and treated people and staff with kindness and respect. The registered manager and staff said the service culture was person-centred, open, inclusive, and empowering. The staff and registered manager were aware of their responsibilities, and accountability. Staff said they felt comfortable raising concerns they may have with the service and take responsibility for their own conduct.

The service had systems in place to encourage people and staff to speak up, records showed this included providing feedback on the service. Regular meetings, supervisions for staff and information on how to whistle blow if staff had concerns to disclose anonymously. Staff provided positive feedback regarding the registered manager’s leadership style, and how well run the service was. They said they were happy to speak up as they felt confident that they would be listened to and treated fairly.

There was a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights within the service. Equality and diversity were actively promoted. The registered manager stated if they found any inequality, they would take action to address this. Staff felt confident that if they needed more training, they could approach the registered manager, and they would be listened to.

There were clear care planning and oversight systems in place to oversee the effective provision of people's care in partnership with people using the service and staff. The service also had systems that were electronic which stored people's details, appointment schedules, and if tasks and support visits were completed on time. Data was collated and used to update and improve the service provided. Staff knew what was expected of them from their role and appreciated the level of oversight from the registered manager. They told us they attended staff meetings to discuss performance and review people's care needs. The registered manager would check their competency in medicines administration and complete random spot checks when they were providing personal care at people's homes, and records confirmed this.

The service had processes in place to maintain good working relationships with external healthcare and other services to provide integrated care that met people’s support needs and enabled them to live as independently as possible. No one who spoke with us had any concerns about the service failing to respond to their care and support needs.

The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. They asked for feedback from staff, and they could review the care staff had given from daily logs and during spot checks. The service worked with people and their relatives to identify areas that required improvement. There were clear processes for staff induction which included training, shadow shifts and refresher training. Staff told us the service was well-led and managed, with leaders being approachable and responsive. One staff member said, “We get regular supervisions with the manager, we have monthly team meetings that the manager chairs and there is a staff incentive scheme if we cover extra shifts or do extra duties."