PHC Home Care 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant we identified shortfalls with the governance of the service. Not all areas of improvement identified at the previous inspection had been rectified. Audits failed to identify and address issues we identified in respect of medicines management. This was a continued breach of regulation in relation to good governance. Staff spoke positively about management of the service. Management sought feedback from people and relatives.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they felt there was a positive culture within the agency, and they understood the values of the organisation. They said they had a positive experience working at the agency and felt they were a valued part of the team.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. Management promoted people’s equal rights and ensured there was no workforce inequalities.

Open communication was promoted between management and care staff. Meetings and effective communication between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss people’s individual support needs and the running of the service. We however noted that staff meetings were not documented and discussed this with the nominated individual who advised that they would do this in future.

Management was clear about the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. The nominated individual was clear about the ethos of the agency and told us, “We want to provide high quality care that aims to be holistic.”

People and relatives spoke positively about the service. A relative told us, “We are extremely satisfied with the agency.”

Staff spoke positively about working at the service. They were complimentary about management and said they were well supported. A member of staff said, “The manager is approachable and helpful.” Another member of staff told us, “The manager is very good. There is a good support system at the agency.”

Staff told us they knew how to speak up if they had concerns. They were confident that management and their colleagues would support and listen to them. They said they would not hesitate to speak up if they needed to.

Management encouraged and welcomed feedback from people, relatives and staff. However, there was a lack of documented evidence detailing the feedback obtained. Procedures were in place for investigating and responding to concerns and complaints.

Procedures were in place to help ensure workforce equality and support which focused on diversity and inclusion. These were implemented through recruitment practices, training, and support for staff.

Staff said their individual needs and requests were met and supported. Staff spoke positively about working at the agency. Staff were supported with flexible working conditions and had opportunities to celebrate their individual diversity.

The provider did not always have effective governance systems in place to identify and drive improvements at the service. Whilst the service had a system to monitor medicines management electronically, they failed to identify and address issues in relation to the effective completion of MARs. We also found that the service did not have a formal medicines audit system in place. We were therefore not assured that areas for medicines improvement were identified, and appropriate action was taken.

Management completed some checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service. For example, there was documented evidence that they reviewed care plans and risk assessments. However, their audits failed to identify issues we found with inconsistencies in the level of detail recorded in risk assessments.

Whilst there was some evidence that people’s daily records were reviewed, it was not clear which ones had been audited. Further daily records did not consistently record important information about the care and support people received in respect of medicines.

Some documents relating to people’s care and support were hand-written and not always clearly legible. For example, 1 person’s PRN (to be taken when required) protocol for a medicine was handwritten and not easy to read. Another person’s incident form was also completed by hand and difficult to read. Such information needs to be clear and legible so that they can always be relied on.

People and relatives we spoke with were confident management and staff would make referrals to other agencies if needed.



Management understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other agencies.

The service did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. The provider had not ensured learning and improvement in all areas of improvement identified at the last inspection and appropriate improvements had not always been made.