We Care Chorlton

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 identified 5 breaches of regulation during the inspection including 1 breach for governance. Auditing systems had not been effective and needed to be improved to ensure key areas of the service met the standard required. Poor record keeping across all areas of the service was a key concern. The provider had started to make some changes prior to the inspection and was receiving support from the local council to implement these changes. Staff told us it was a good company to work for and they felt supported in their roles. There was a supportive culture in the office and staff felt able to speak up and access support when they needed it.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The staff we spoke to were positive and told us We Care Chorlton was a good company to work for. The Nominated Individual explained they were a local company and were an integral part of the local community.

The Nominated Individual shared a draft document with their vision for 2025. This outlined their plans and future direction for the service.

The Nominated Individual recognised changes were needed and the office team had been reorganised during the summer months. Work was in progress to ensure the governance systems were effective. A new office manager had also been recruited and was due to start soon after the inspection. Any changes need to be effective and need to be sustained.

Governance processes had not been effective. The Nominated individual was very responsive to any concerns or shortfalls identified and was working closely with the council to work through an action plan.

Staff told us there was an open culture and they were encouraged to raise concerns.

There were no recent staff surveys, but office staff were available during office hours and there was an on call system out of hours.

Staff told us they were treated fairly. The Nominated Individual was proud of the diverse workforce and the efforts made to support people from different backgrounds. They made us aware of a range of initiatives in place to create an inclusive environment.

There were a range of appropriate policies in place to support staff.

The Nominated Individual acknowledged they had not been aware of some of the shortfalls identified during the inspection. The Nominated Individual was very supportive of the inspection and added any identified shortfalls to their action plan. They were already working closely with the local council to improve the service through the action plan and changes were being implemented. The office team had been reorganised before the inspection, a new manager had been recruited and new digital systems were being implemented.

A quality assurance policy was in place to support good governance. This had not been effective. During the inspection, we found numerous shortfalls. These included unsafe visit schedules, poor record keeping, care plans were not accurate and up to date, shortfalls in medicines management and the provider had not followed their own policy to ensure staff were recruited safely.

The office team liaised with the contact centre at the local council to resolve issues as they arose. The Nominated Individual was working closely on an action plan with the local commissioning team.

We received mixed feedback from 5 social workers who had experience of working with the service. Two were very positive about their experience of working in partnership with staff at We Care Chorlton and 2 reported a negative experience.

The service worked alongside a variety of agencies. These processes worked well.

Staff felt supported and were confident they could raise issues to help improve the service where required.

Processes were in place to ensure the service could respond to concerns as they arose. Staff were clear they needed to report concerns to the office and people and their families were confident they could also contact the office. Office staff made regular calls to people to obtain feedback about their experience of care.