Coyle Homecare

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

Governance systems were in place to help monitor aspects of the service so that the quality of care provided could be assessed and monitored. There was a positive culture based on meeting people’s individual needs. Management had oversight of the agency and promoted regular communication and openness. Staff spoke positively about management and felt able to speak up. Management sought feedback from people and relatives. They worked in partnership with others to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service. They understood the values of the organisation and had sufficient information about these values to ensure they promoted these in their work.

The culture at the service reflected the visions and values of the organisation and best practice. Staff provided personalised care which met people's individual needs. Staff undertook a range of training and had used this to help ensure procedures were followed and there was good quality care. There were regular meetings so staff could share their experiences and learn together.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and said they felt well supported. A member of staff told us, “I can speak to the office anytime. I feel supported by management.” Another member of staff said, “Staff are all very kind. The office encourage us to speak up.” The registered manager emphasised their commitment to providing high quality care and supporting people to live fulfilling lives.

Regular meetings between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss the running of the service and people's individual support needs. The service operated in an open and transparent way. There was an open-door policy where the manager was available for people, relatives and staff when they were needed. There were effective systems in place to support this.

Staff told us they knew how to speak up if they had concerns or something went wrong. They felt the registered manager and the organisation supported them and listened to them. A member of staff told us, “I definitely feel able to raise concerns and questions.”

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff. Staff were able to discuss issues at one to one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up. Systems were in place for staff to raise anonymous concerns.

Staff spoke positively about working at the agency and said that their diversity needs were met. A member of staff told us, “I have had a good experience working here. I do feel valued working here.” Staff were supported with flexible working conditions, felt discrimination would be challenged and had opportunities to celebrate their diversity.

The agency had systems to help ensure staff were treated well and ensure they had development opportunities. Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. These were implemented through recruitment practices, training, and support for staff.

A clear management structure was in place. Staff had clear roles and responsibilities and were well informed of their roles and reporting arrangements. Staff spoke positively about the management of the service. A member of staff told us, “The agency is well organised. There is good communication. Compared to other agencies, the communication here is so much better.”

Appropriate systems were in place to help promote effective governance. Audits and checks were carried out to monitor the running and efficiency of the service to help identify deficiencies and drive improvements. Audits and checks were carried out by management and included checks on MARs, care plans and daily log notes. Whilst the agency had a system in place to audit and check the completion of MARs, we found that these did not always identify issues with regards to their completion. We raised this with the registered manager who advised that they would immediately review their audits to ensure they consistently identified shortfalls with the completion of MARS. There were systems to ensure all staff were accountable and shared information with each other.

The service was open to feedback and actioned input from other professionals.

Systems were in place to help encourage good working relationships with health care professionals. These relationships helped to support people to receive joined up care.

The registered manager told us they were committed to the continuous improvement of the service and emphasised the importance of promoting a culture of learning and development.

Management undertook a range of audits to monitor the quality of care and support provided by the service. Processes enabled the service to use information from audits, feedback and care plan reviews to make positive changes.