Tender365 Care (UK) Limited

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 service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. The service provided person centred care but only to 1 service user. We found a breach of the legal regulations in relation to governance. There was limited information to evidence effective oversight and support that learning and innovation took place and that there was an open and fair culture.

This service scored 11 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The Nominated Individual said that they had a ‘open door policy’ for staff to raise any issues. Feedback from staff was mixed, they were clear of their roles and responsibilities, and they told us that they could call the office if they wanted advice. However, some staff said that they did not find the leadership and management to always be transparent especially surrounding employment issues.

The provider had a Whistle blowing Policy and Duty of Candour policy which set out the need for a culture of openness and truthfulness in all interactions with its service users, their care staff, and families. However, these processes were not effective for all staff.

The Nominated Individual told us that staff meetings were held but were not recorded, however a meeting record was provided which showed that only staff working in the office attended and not all care staff. Staff provided mixed feedback some saying that they attended staff meetings and other stating that there weren’t any. We received mixed feedback about the management of the service. Some staff said that there was a positive culture, and others said that there was a lack of transparency and communication with staff.

There were not consistent, effective systems of accountability and governance in place to support people, staff, and the service. Assessments completed of the people’s needs lacked sufficient details in relation to their medical conditions and history, their mobility and how that should be managed. This had not been identified and rectified through governance systems. The provider relied upon a practical handover to provide the care staff with information of how to complete care, risking information not being recorded and passed on to other care staff or stakeholders. A quality assurance policy and procedure and an internal audit schedule was in place, but the only audit of management processes was dated April 2024. The policy stated that monthly audits would take place, but no further audits had been provided. Audits were not being completed according to the provider’s policy meaning that issues that need improvement or action, and any emerging patterns and trends might be missed. There were gaps in employment records. When additional information was submitted, some information was then different from the original employment histories provided. The provider’s governance systems had not identified missing information within staff recruitment records or the following inconsistencies. There was a supervision policy, but it was unclear from the supervision policy how often the supervisions would be actioned. The Nominated Individual told us supervision meetings were completed and gave us supervision documents, but a staff member told us that they had not had a supervision meeting. Contradictory information was provided in relation to staff meetings, and whether or not these were recorded and how information was shared.