Support at Home 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

We assessed one quality statement in the well-led key question and found no areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection which was rated good. Our rating for the key question has not changed and remains good. The service was safe. Systems were in place to review, monitor and develop the service.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Clear lines of accountability within the service were in place. Staff were aware of who they needed to contact in the event of needing support, or to report a concern.

Business continuity plans were in place to manage urgent situations when they occurred. For example, bad weather. The registered manager explained how people’s needs would be prioritised in the event of disruption to the service. The management team had systems in place for the oversight and monitoring of the delivery of care people received. This included live monitoring of the care and support people were receiving and gave the opportunity for the service to take appropriate action for example, in the event a person’s medicines had not been administered. Additional monitoring included monthly reviews of people's medicines. The service requested feedback from people using the service on a regular basis to assess and review service delivery.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.