Ros and Mos House Support Ltd

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

This service scored 57 (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 always promote a clear vision, strategy and culture for the service. For example, the management team did not always demonstrate how learning and improvement were being embedded into the service to ensure people received safe, high quality care. The registered manager engaged in regular conversations with people, relatives and staff. However, it was not always clear how their feedback was being used to shape and improve the service provided.

Leaders were not always able to demonstrate a robust understanding of the issues and priorities for the service. They did not always ensure they had time to develop their own skills and knowledge and this had impacted on their ability to lead effectively. There was no clear strategy to effectively address the areas where improvements were needed.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they were able to speak to the registered manager openly about any concerns. Staff had access to whistleblowing information and guidance if required.

The provider promoted equality and equity for the staff who worked for them. Staff were comfortable speaking to the registered manager if they had concerns and could request additional support and training as required to help them in their role.

The provider’s governance processes were not effective. Checks completed by the management team were not robust and had failed to identify and address concerns. For example, we found significant issues with the oversight of staff recruitment despite an action plan and auditing system being in place to address this concern following the last inspection. The provider did not have clear oversight of the risks to people’s safety. Risk assessments were not accurate or lacked detail despite auditing processes being implemented to monitor their completion. People’s care plans did not include all relevant information about their needs and preferences. However, the provider’s care planning audit had failed to identify any concerns or shortfalls. The provider’s governance processes had failed to ensure improvements were made to the quality and safety of people’s care.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other health and social care professionals. They shared information and sought support from other health services where relevant to support people’s health and care needs.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. During our assessment we identified a number of concerns which had been raised at the previous inspection and found continued breaches of regulation. The provider had completed an action plan to address these concerns following the last inspection. However, this had not been implemented or managed effectively and this meant the necessary improvements had not been made.