Seeds 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

Governance was not always consistently embedded at the service. There were a range of audits and checks to assess and monitor the quality of care provided but they had not always been effective. The nominated individual for the provider was a visible presence at the service. They knew people well and on occasions supported people in their day to day lives.

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.

All staff said they felt supported by the management team who they said, “Responded immediately” to concerns and were “Always responsive.” Staff told us the on call system was effective. The management team and staff demonstrated a passion for people and in providing the best care possible. Staff told us that Seeds Care was a positive place to work. The nominated individual for the provider was a visible presence at the service. They knew people well and on occasions supported people in their day to day lives.

There was no registered manager in post. The nominated individual was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. In the absence of a registered manager, the nominated individual for the provider was overseeing the day to day running of the service. The nominated individual told us the systems and process manager supported the business. The management team lacked full oversight of the service. For example, the management team did not know if the training they provided staff in skilling them to support people with a learning disability and autism followed best practice guidelines. It was only after we gave feedback from staff to the provider that changes were made in the effectiveness of epilepsy medicines training.

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.

Staff told us they liked working in the service. Staff told us that the managers and team leaders were very supportive and good at their job and felt they could approach them with any concern. Staff we spoke with were confident that they could discuss any concerns with the management team and these would be acted on, they were aware of how to escalate concerns to senior management or outside of the organisation.

Governance was not always consistently embedded at the service. There was a range of audits and checks to assess and monitor the quality of care provided but they had not always been effective. When significant incidents had occurred a ‘management action’ form had been set up to record what had happened as a result to keep people safe and learn lessons. However, the management action forms we looked at were all blank. When we asked the provider about this they responded they were not aware of this oversight. An analysis of incidents gave an overview of the service as a whole such as the type of incident and time of day but did not give an analysis of each person. Therefore, it could not be assured the strategies staff were using with people were the most effective. Quality assurance and monitoring had not identified a number of shortfalls we found during the assessment. This included the quality of daily records made by staff of people's care, mental capacity assessments, medical guidelines and completing statutory notifications.

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.