Aamevol Home Care 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection this key question has been rated inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was not well-led. We found a breach of regulation in relation to the governance measures in place to monitor and audit the quality of the service. There were limited audits and quality checks being completed to monitor the quality of the service and no plans in place to improve the service. The registered manager did not have effective oversight of key aspects of the service such as how many staff were employed at the service, how to employ staff safely in line with legislation or the detail of people’s care plans and risk assessments. Staff did not always feel supported in their job role and there was no recorded evidence of staff having meetings to geed back and be involved in the running of the service. The registered manager and management team told us they wanted to improve and put a plan in place to do this during our inspection.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager and management team were unable to explain a clear direction of the service to us. Audits and governance measures were not in place for most of the service. Despite this the provider was setting up multiple other office locations to expand the business and the number of people receiving support. The registered manager could not explain how it was a safe direction to continue to expand the business, with the current lack of audits and governance measures in place. There were significant discrepancies in relation to whether or not senior management team members at the service were involved in the running of the service or not. These senior members of the management team had not had recruitment checks completed. These individuals’ roles and accountability at the service was not clear and was not explained to us.

Staff feedback about the service’s culture was mixed. Some staff said they did not feel well supported in all aspects of their job roles and others said they did. People and relatives told us they thought the culture at the service was good. One relative told us, ‘‘We have had no problems so far and I do not foresee us having any in the future. Staff seem happy and support [family member] as best they can.’’

The service did not demonstrate they had capable leadership with the right skills and knowledge. We identified breaches of the legal regulations and concerns in areas such as auditing and governance, safe staffing and staff recruitment checks. The registered manager did not have a full understanding of key legislation such as how to recruit staff safely. It was unclear who was involved at the service from a senior manager level. There were no recruitment checks available for us to review about people who were advertised as working for the service in job roles such as executive director of operations. Some staff told us they did not feel well supported by the management team and did not fell included in discussions. There were no records, apart from 1 phone call made to people and their relatives, that people or staff had been included in discussions about the service.

Some staff told us they felt well supported and the management team were compassionate and supported them well. People and their relatives told us they felt the service was well-led. One relative said, ‘‘I don’t know what I can tell you really. I am really happy with how everything is going, and I owe a lot to the service and the fantastic staff team who work there.’’

We could not be assured of the freedom to speak up. Due to our findings that incidents were not reviewed by the leaders, we could not be assured people, and their relatives would be informed of these promptly and would be given an apology where required.

Some staff were unsure how they could speak up and raise concerns outside of the service to partners such as CQC or the local authority.

However relatives told us they were able to raise concerns. One relative said, ‘‘I raised a few concerns at the beginning, but these were all dealt with quickly.’’

We received mixed feedback from staff about how well supported they felt by the management team. Some staff said they did not feel the management team supported them in all aspects of their job role, such as speaking about how effective training had been. Staff were not all being supported with supervisions and meetings to discuss their job roles and any further training or support they may need. There was no evidence staff had been asked to feed back about the service.

Some staff told us they felt well supported by the management team. One staff member explained how their personal circumstances had changed, and the management team had supported them to continue working with adjustments in place.

The service was not being governed or audited in a lot of areas to make sure the service was providing good quality care for people. Audits were not being completed in areas such as people’s care plans and daily records, staff rotas, staff recruitment files, whether people were being supported to achieve their outcomes, people’s experiences of using the service or the overall quality of the service. Leaders were unable to present to us audits they told us they had completed. A member of the management team told us many audits were not in place, and they were aware this was an area that needed immediate improvement. We were not shown any audits completed by the registered manager or other senior members of the management team to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager and management team told us they would start to put audits in place to monitor these key areas of the service, however these were not supplied to us during the inspection to help assure us actions were taken.

There was limited evidence available to show how staff worked in partnership with others to support people. People and staff told us people saw professionals such as GP’s or nurses, however the results of this support were not being recorded in people’s care plans or daily records.

The management team told us they were planning to link and work in partnership with local authorities to expand the service and start supporting more people. One person was being supported to access the local community on a daily basis as this was their choice. One relative said., ‘‘I know [family member] really appreciates the staff doing their best to take them where they want to go every day.’’

The service could not evidence a focus on learning, by operating effective systems to identify or making improvements. There were no service improvement plans in place when we inspected the service. There were limited audits and governance at the service to support learning about what needed to be improved. Following the first part of our inspection, the management team did put a service improvement plan in place based on our findings and shared this with us. People and relatives were positive about their support and felt confident the service would continue to improve. One relative told us, ‘‘The service has helped us so much. I do not know how [family member] would be getting on without them.’’