Cera - Essex and Havering

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

The key question of well-led was rated as requires improvement at our last inspection. At this assessment the rating has improved and the key question of well-led is now rated good. Systems and processes were effective to ensure good governance and oversight. The provider independently identified risk which impacted on people’s safety and welfare. The approach to learning, improvement and innovation was consistent across the service, acting on feedback from staff and service users. The registered manager was committed to driving improvement and actively sort feedback.

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.

Relatives felt the service was well led and they felt listened to. The registered manager was open and transparent and had good communication with staff and service users. One staff member said, “I feel confident about what I am doing as a carer, if I need any support I always get help, even if that’s a small thing.”

When we visited the office, it was clear the office staff and management worked together as a capable team. The registered manager spoke with passion about people and the team. The registered manager had an overview of the service and was aware of people's needs. Staff we spoke with understood their roles and responsibilities. These were discussed at one to one meetings to ensure best practice.

There were systems in place to check and monitor the quality of the service. For example, there were systems that identified when staff training was due, or when care documents need reviewing. The provider has systems in place to quickly identify and share areas of improvement such as service delivery feedback and staff feedback.

There were opportunities for people, their relatives and staff to share their views about the quality of the service provided. The registered manager sought people's views weekly and recently sent an annual survey to ensure they had an overview of how people felt about the care and support provided. Staff confirmed they had the opportunity to attend meetings but could talk with the registered manager at any time.

There were robust systems in place to capture peoples feedback through the use of technology. The registered manager was able to explain how they use this feedback to tailor peoples care. The provider has quality monitoring calls with people who provided comprehensive feedback on their experience of the service and care received. The registered manager said, “I have sent a message to all staff completing the quality monitoring calls and visits to explicitly ask the client if there is anything we do when we support them that we should do differently.”

The provider’s equality and diversity policy gave a commitment to ensure that people using the service and staff with any of the legally defined protected characteristics did not experience inequality or discrimination. Protected characteristics are specific aspects of a person's identity defined by the Equality Act 2010 which includes protection from discrimination due to factors such as age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and disability.

Staff we spoke with were positive about the governance, leadership and oversight. Office staff told us the management team supported them and they, as a team, supported each other and management. The registered manager explained the various methods used to maintain consistent and effective oversight of the service. The registered manager told us there were clear lines of communication and all staff understood their specific areas of responsibility. Feedback from staff confirmed they understood their responsibilities and how to communicate concerns.

The service had a clear organisational structure and staff had designated areas of responsibility and accountability. We saw the service had clear and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements in place. The provider’s quality assurance system contained key performance indicators that identified how the service was performing. These included any areas that required improvement, as well as areas where the service was accomplishing or exceeding targets. The registered manager had commissioned an independent audit of the service demonstrating transparency and focus to improve. The registered manager shared the service improvement plan with us.

“We regularly work in partnership with GP's, district nurses, pharmacies, social workers and other community partners.”

We requested information from partners however, we received no information in response to our request.

Monitoring and quality assurance audits took place and any areas identified as needing improvement were addressed accordingly. It was clear there was a focus on innovation and improvement. The management team welcomed new ideas that may improve the quality of the service for people using it and working within it. Staff fedback how they accessed training at any time to help them in their role.

The registered manager monitored the service to ensure improvements were made and lessons were learnt. Lessons learned were discussed during staff meetings, as well as during supervisions. The registered manager told how they tailored training around identified areas of improvement such as transdermal patches and diabetes. We were assured that lessons were learnt when things went wrong. Safeguarding concerns, accidents, and incidents were reviewed to ensure emerging themes had been identified and any necessary action taken. We saw there was a system for logging, recording, and investigating complaints, which was overseen by the management team.