Solution Care 247 Northamptonshire

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. This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. During the assessment, we found the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

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.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The provider and registered managed had created a culture that was kind and compassionate. People were asked for their opinions of the service and feedback through reviews and surveys, results were analysed, and high satisfaction results were received. The registered manager and provider told us as they visited people regularly, which meant any emerging concerns were dealt with quickly. Staff received training to enable them to understand the challenges some people experienced due to a decline in physical or cognitive abilities and to care for people in line with their needs.

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge or experience to lead effectively. The provider and registered manager worked closely together to provide a caring and compassionate service to people. However, the registered manager and provider needed to develop their knowledge to implement effective governance to ensure the service provided safe and effective care to people in line with best practice guidance. Despite this, we received positive feedback about the provider and registered manager. A relative said, “I think the company communicates well and provides a good service.” A person told us, “Communication from the managers is very good and they contact me to ensure all is well.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People, their relatives and staff told us they would confidently speak up and felt listened to. Staff were given the opportunities to voice any concerns they had. A relative said, “The manager who I communicate with is efficient and most importantly genuinely cares about her clients. I know that if I have an issue it will be dealt with immediately and in a positive way.” A person told us, “Communication from the managers is very good and they contact me to ensure all is well.”

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff provided positive feedback about their experience of working at the service and told us they felt equally treated and supported by leaders. A staff member told us, “It is a good place to work with they have given me so much support and attention. They have trained me and guided me, and they have given me the number of hours, they have been very supportive.”

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. Quality monitoring systems and audits were not effective in identifying actions and areas for improvement. People were placed at increased risk of harm due to ineffective governance. For example, systems in place to audit medicines had not been effective in identifying where service users' were at increased risk of harm from the unsafe management of their medicines. Systems to audit call logs were ineffective in identifying areas for improvement to ensure people received support from staff as per their assessed needs. For example, a review of call logs for 2 people identified several calls where 2 staff did not log in where 2 staff are required for the call. This placed people at increased risk of harm not receiving their care in a safe way. The registered manager provided assurances to us that people received the support from 2 staff for all calls, and people’s feedback confirmed this, however, their systems had failed to identify and action this concern. The registered manager and provider told us they would action this.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. The registered manager worked in collaboration with all relevant external stakeholders and agencies, where required. We received positive feedback from professionals that worked with the service. People were supported to access the community where they were able to. A professional told us, “[The service] has a timetable so that [person] gets ready in time to go out for activities in his community.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The provider had implemented a digital system to improve care planning and delivery records. This needed further improvement and development to ensure it was being used effectively. Quality assurance systems were in place to continuously improve the service, however, these needed further development to ensure they were effective in identifying areas for improvement within the service.