Amicable Care Ltd

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 service was not always well-led and has been rated requires improvement. We found a continuing breach of regulation relating to the governance of the service. Some improvements had been made since our last inspection, but further and sustained improvement was needed. This included assessment, care records and medicines records. People and staff gave positive feedback on the management of the service.

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 service was driven by the provider’s ethos to provide reliable support that met people’s individual wishes by caring, local staff who were familiar with their needs. This was reflected in the feedback people provided. Their comments included, “They are perfect, I can’t fault them at all” and “10 out of 10”. Staff confirmed they shared a compassionate, caring culture led by a supportive management team.

The management team monitored staff for their compassionate attitude during induction, training, spot checks, staff meetings and by collecting customer feedback.

Staff had regular contact with the management team and said they could speak with them at any time. Staff told us they felt leaders were inclusive and gave examples where the registered manager had covered care calls as part of the team where staff needed time off.

The provider’s governance processes did not always meet expected standards which impacted on how capably the service was led. Lessons had not always been learned from previous shortfalls.

The management team had an open-door policy and spent time speaking with staff individually about their experience of working at the service. Staff told us they felt comfortable to raise any concerns with the management team and felt any concerns would be addressed.

The provider’s employee handbook included information about staff responsibility and their route for speaking up if they had concerns. The ‘whistleblowing policy’ encouraged staff to “raise any issue they may have which they feel is wrong, unsafe, dangerous, illegal or a breach of any other regulations or obligations”.

Staff were positive in their feedback about the supportive, fair attitude of the managers.

The management team were committed to a fair and equitable culture in the service. An open and transparent recruitment process was used when employing new staff.

The management team described how improvements had been made to the checks they carried out on the service. These included a range of monthly audits, for example of recruitment checks, safeguarding and accident analysis. However, our assessment found the provider’s governance processes did not always meet expected standards which impacted on how well the service was led.

The provider’s governance system had not identified the ongoing shortfalls we found in relation to medicines management, risk assessments and care plans. This was a continuing breach of regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health & Social Care Act 2008 Regulated Activity Regulations 2014.

People were able to describe experiences of the service working with other agencies to provide their support. For example, one person said, “[Amicable staff] know how to do things to support me, but don’t usually because I have my own staff do it. But they’re good and do help my staff.”

The management team described how they worked in partnership with other agencies. They gave examples of contacts with local commissioners, individual social workers, and local health services.

External professionals did not raise any concerns about the provider’s role within local community services.

The provider worked with local healthcare professionals to ensure people received effective care. For example, where people’s health had deteriorated, we saw evidence of staff seeking advice from healthcare professionals.

Since the last inspection, the provider had improved the formal communication and directives for the staff team. Staff meeting minutes demonstrated the management team encouraged two-way communication and promoted staff suggestions. However, the provider had not made all required improvements from the last inspection.

The provider had improved the way they monitored significant events. A programme of monthly analysis of accidents and incidents was carried out. However, further and sustained improvement was needed to show how the service was fully monitored.