Carelytical Homecare 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 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 newly registered 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 68 (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 a belief to put people’s experience first, collaboratively working, and founded on the support from the registered manager. Staff embedded these cultures and values into their practice and promoted the vision of the service in their approach.

The provider had an inclusive leader 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 and experience to lead effectively. Staff provided positive feedback for the registered manager, with 1 staff member telling us, “The registered manager is great, she cares about the service users, families and us staff.” The registered manager valued their staff and placed importance on ensuring they were fully supported in their role.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy and were able to explain the correct reporting processes to be followed if they had concerns. All staff told us they felt confident to speak up and felt they would be supported to do so. Supervisions and staff meetings were completed routinely to capture feedback or concerns from staff. Staff told us, “The registered manager is available at any time. I know if I have any problems, I can call the registered manager, and they will listen and support me.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. Staff were treated fairly and equitably in work and during the application and selection process. The service had a diverse workforce of different genders, ages and ethnicities. Reasonable adjustments were available for staff and policies were in place in line with best practice guidance. Staff told us they felt they were treated fairly and equitably.

The provider did not always have effective systems in place to promote good governance and we found shortfalls in some of the audit processes. Where some audits were in place, such as care plan review audits, they were not accurate or specific to individual people. For example, the care plan audit was ticked ‘Yes’ for all appropriate risk assessments being in place for people. However, this was not correct. Medication audits were completed, but these failed to provide assurances of effective oversight of administration and did not contain some key areas detailed in the NICE guidance. Some audits were not completed such as on call monitoring which meant the service could not clearly demonstrate actions taken to address issues and improve the quality of the service provided. However, other audits in place to monitor spot checks, competencies, training, and infection prevention and control was maintained consistently.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. People and relatives explained how they had experienced how the service worked in partnership with other professionals effectively, and felt communication was clear. Staff told us communication was open, transparent and the registered manager shared detailed and clear information about people or other services when required.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. Quality assurance systems were not always robust enough to provide evidence of lessons learnt, and we saw no evidence of innovative improvement strategies. Technology within the service has not been fully used creatively to improve outcomes. The registered manager was responsive to all of the inspection findings and has already taken action to implement new processes to review the shortfalls and implement ways to improve the quality and performance of the service. These include changes to the electronic PRN processes, introduction of the call monitoring functionality on the electronic system, and improvements to the audits already in place.