- Homecare service
Health & Alliance Home Care
Report from 28 October 2024 assessment
Contents
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
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 service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at 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 service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The management team and staff understood the support and values of Health and Alliance Home Care which was to put people first and to be supported by trained, compassionate and skilled staff. This was reflected in the feedback people and relatives provided. One person said, “The managers and staff are very friendly and approachable.” Another person told us, “The staff are are all 100% trained well.” Staff told us they were consistently told by the management team to put the person first and if they needed to stay any longer on a care call this was supported to ensure the person’s needs were met as they required.
Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
Not all managers demonstrated the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always demonstrate the skills, knowledge, to lead effectively. For example, we found deficits in the assessments of risk associated with people’s needs, the application of the principles of the MCA (2005) and with the overall governance of Health and Alliance Home Care. However, everyone we spoke with told us the management team was compassionate and caring. They were approachable and always put the person first. One relative said, “The agency is run very well, and it is a fantastic service. We are very happy and [relatives name] appreciates everything they do. The staff are very thorough, and we have no worries at all.”
Freedom to speak up
The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People and relatives were positive about the culture of speaking up and felt they could raise any concerns or compliments anytime without any negative consequences. Staff were supported by policies, including the whistle blowing policy, and felt empowered to raise concerns or suggestions. People, relatives and staff were confident they would be responded to appropriately. People and relatives were encouraged to complete a questionnaire on the support they received. The current survey was being processed at the time of this assessment and feedback had yet to be given to people.
Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
The service valued diversity in their workforce and worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The provider had equality and diversity policies which they followed when supporting staff. Staff members told us they felt supported by the provider. One staff member said, “I feel completely supported by managers. They are genuinely interested in what is happening in my life and support me in all areas. I have never felt undervalued or discriminated against.”
Governance, management and sustainability
The service did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The provider failed to have effective quality monitoring systems in place. Their checks failed to identify deficits in care planning, risk assessments or the effective application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). These issues put people at the risk of avoidable harm as their checks did not identify or drive improvements.
Partnerships and communities
The service did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The management team did not effectively follow up on recommendations from healthcare partners to ensure people received a seamless service. This put people at the risk of inconsistent care. However, despite our findings people and relatives told us staff supported them to access additional services for example, district nurses or foot health.
Learning, improvement and innovation
The service did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The management team did not effectively follow up on recommendations from healthcare partners to ensure people received a seamless service. This put people at the risk of inconsistent care. However, despite our findings people and relatives told us staff supported them to access additional services for example, district nurses or foot health.