Alina Homecare Specialist Care - Southampton and Hampshire

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

Staff were, overall, confident that the leadership team were committed to delivering a good quality service and promoted a supportive and open culture. Staff told us they had confidence in the skills and knowledge of their leadership team. The leadership team had a clear vision for the service and our discussions with the registered managers and the nominated individual, indicated that they had passion to deliver this. The provider had systems in place to develop the knowledge and skills of its current and future leaders. There were a range of governance systems in place that helped to keep people safe but also improve the quality of care and support being provided. This included audits of medicines, care plans, people’s environments, and finances.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had systems in place to develop the knowledge and skills of its current and future leaders. This included a comprehensive training programme which covered areas such as standards and professional boundaries, supervision and appraisals, management of safeguarding concerns and understanding regulatory requirements. Staff undertaking the course had to complete a detailed workbook and knowledge check. The organisation ensured staff were supported to understand the vision and values of the service. For example, discussions in supervision were based around the organisation’s values. Leaders held webinars where they reflected on the values and attitudes of the service.

Staff were, overall, confident that the leadership team were committed to delivering a good quality service and promoted a supportive and open culture. Staff told us they had confidence in the skills and knowledge of their leadership team, by which they were referring to their team leaders, scheme managers and the registered managers. One staff member said, “They are so knowledgeable, and I have learnt a lot of them” and another said, “The leadership is very good, both the manager and team leader encourage participation and carry every member of staff along. No staff is shut down”.  Some staff said they would like to see the registered managers more frequently. For example, 1 staff member said, “I am sure they are very knowledgeable, but they are too far away to have an impact on us, and another staff member felt the gap between them, and the registered managers was “Reducing but still marked”. We discussed this with the registered managers. They told us they had acknowledged they did not have the capacity to personally have a high profile in the local teams and so had added further layers of management to provide this. This included, deputy managers, scheme managers and team leaders. However, overall staff said they were supported, felt valued and were motivated to perform their role well. Comments from staff included, “I feel valued as a member of staff. Staff morale is good in both places I work” and “I feel staff morale is high within the service and I feel valued and supported as a staff member… There is an excellent team dynamic within the service”.  The leadership team had a clear vision for the service and our discussions with the registered managers and the nominated individual, indicated that they had passion to deliver this. For example, a registered manager said, “I think we have a good culture through all levels of the organisation…. it’s about working hard to do the best for people by having fun along the way, this impacts positively on people”.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Feedback from staff was sought and used to improve the service. Staff told us that a system of regular staff meetings was starting to be embedded across the various locations where people lived. Overall, staff told us these meetings were useful. One staff member said, “Yes we have staff meetings, and we are encouraged to share our thoughts and ideas” and another said, “Staff meetings help us to improve our team bonding and improve our daily work routine”. A third staff member said, “Staff meetings are a useful forum for sharing ideas. I feel listened to, my contributions do matter”. A registered manager told us there were a range of systems and processes in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. A registered manager told us, “We have robust systems in place and good oversight of the systems. Team leaders, scheme managers and field care supervisors are placed on management training to support them with their knowledge…we also have good wrap around support from the quality team…During audits we use various areas of evidence to make our judgements. We use detail from observations, review of documents and feedback from people we support, staff and circle of support. That 360 review enables us to fully assess the service provided”.

There were a range of governance systems in place that helped to keep people safe but also improve the quality of care and support being provided. This included audits of medicines, care plans, people’s environments, and finances. A service wide audit aligned to CQC’s assessment framework had been developed and a service improvement plan was in place which provided a framework for gathering information about risks, performance and also planning for new ideas and approaches that might enhance future performance. Clinical governance meetings were used to review best practice guidance and to share lessons learnt / good news shared across branches. Quality and training meetings were used to reflect on the new Care Quality Commission approach to inspection and the training academy provided an update on training. Reviews of the quality of service provision were held with commissioners. Following a recent review, the social care professional had fed back to the service, “Thank you to you, the staff and the residents for being so welcoming and accommodating it was lovely to meet them and a big thank you to the staff for all the hard work they do it really showed to us the good work you are doing, it was so lovely to meet the residents and see the good relationships they have with everyone on shift and how happy and at home they are”. Surveys were undertaken with people, their circle of support and staff to identify what the service was doing well and the areas it could improve on. There had been a high response rate to the most recent surveys with the feedback being positive. The provider had developed the ‘Be Inspired’ group. This was an opportunity for the leadership team to engage with people, listen to their views and put systems in place to address issues raised. For example, 1 outcome of this group was that people had been involved in developing house rules for visitors and families.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.