Rapid Improvement Care Agency

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

Based on the findings of this assessment we found no issues. This meant the service continued to be consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted good-quality, safe care. The quality and safety of the home care service people received was routinely monitored and assured by managers and senior staff through regular audits and checks. People were also complimentary about the way the service was managed, and how approachable the office-based managers and staff were.

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.

The registered manager and staff told us they aimed to meet the personal care needs of the people they supported in a person-centred way. The office-based managers and staff, as well as care staff in the field, all worked well-together to achieve this aim. The registered manager told us they had a clear vision for the service and told us they routinely used individual supervision and group team meetings and training sessions to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles.

The service aimed to give people consistently good person-centred care and staff worked well together to try and achieve this. Individual supervision and staff meetings were used to reinforce this culture.

The feedback we received from staff about the how the service was managed was generally positive. Staff told us the service was led by suitably competent and approachable managers and staff who were based in the providers offices. They said they received all the support they needed from their line managers who often visited them during their call visits.

The registered manager had the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the service, which they did so with integrity, openness and honesty. An external care professional told us, “The service is well managed. The leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to providing quality care.” Another added, “There is a clear leadership structure and all the office-based managers are approachable and available to deal with any issues they may arise.”

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff told us they were given opportunities to provide feedback about the service and their opinion was valued. A member of staff said, “We can share our opinions in meetings and the registered managers door is always open. I’ve seen them make changes based on our suggestions, like improving how they coordinate staffs scheduled calls or suggesting to family members or the council that an urgent review of a person’s care package is required because their needs have changed.” The registered manager told us the provider had a complaints policy which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and the process for dealing with their concerns.

The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service, their relatives, and staff who worked for them. They used a range of methods to gather people’s views and find out what they thought about the quality of the home care service they received from this provider. For example, people using the service and their relatives had numerous opportunities to express their views about the agency through regular contact with the office-based managers and staff, either in-person during a home visit and/or via the telephone. People were also asked to routinely complete the providers own customer satisfaction surveys. In addition, the provider had a complaints policy which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and the process for dealing with their concerns. People were aware that if they wished to complain they were able to contact the office-based staff and most felt their complaint or concern would be taken seriously and looked into.

Staff told us they were treated equally, and their diversity was respected. They said they worked well-together as part of a diverse team, were treated well by the office-based managers and staff and felt supported by them.

Staff came from diverse backgrounds and the provider had an equal opportunities recruitment process. An external care professional told us, “The leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to fostering a positive work environment for its staff team.”

It was clear from feedback we received from the managers and staff they understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing, monitoring and managing the quality and safety of the home care and supported living services they provided people. Managers told us they carried out regular safety and quality monitoring spot checks on staffs working practices while on a call visit or working in the home where people receiving a supporting living service resided. A member of staff told us, “Our supervisors carry out regular spot checks on our working practices. These checks are constructive and help us ensure we maintain high standards of care.”

Thorough audits were routinely conducted by the office-based managers and senior staff team. These internal audits checked specific records and tasks were completed and well-managed including, in-person and telephone welfare checks on people they supported, coordinating and monitoring call visits, observing staffs working practises during these calls, staff training and support, administering prescribed medicines, and dealing with complaints and safeguarding incidents. The provider had also improved the electronic system they used to oversee and scrutinise how they coordinated and monitored call visits. For example, their electronic call monitoring system had been improved so the office-based managers and staff knew the exact whereabouts of staff during a scheduled call visit and would automatically alert office staff if anyone is more than 15 minutes late. People told us the office-based managers and staff routinely sought their feedback about what they did well and might do better to improve the service they received. A person said, “The manager occasionally rings me up or visits me at home to check if I'm alright and to ask me about my carers.” A relative added, “The office-staff do periodically ring us and pop-in to speak with my [family member] to check how the staff who visit us at home are doing.” The outcome of all the aforementioned audits and checks were routinely analysed which helped the provider to identify issues and to learn lessons about what they could do better. The managers understood their responsibilities in relation to their regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents. Our records told us that appropriate, timely notifications were made to the CQC. The service's previous CQC inspection report was clearly displayed in the providers offices and was easy to access on the provider's website. Displaying CQC ratings is a legal requirement, to inform people, those seeking information about the service and visitors of our judgments.

People told us staff supported them to stay healthy and well. People said staff were good at helping them access external health and social care professionals as and when they needed them and collaborated well with these community health and social professionals and agencies.

Managers and staff told us they regularly liaised with these external bodies and professionals, welcomed their views and advice, and shared best practice ideas with their staff team. A member of staff told us, “We work closely with district and palliative care nurses, physio and occupational therapists, and social workers, and always follow their advice and guidance.” Another member of staff added, “We work hand-in-hand with palliative care nurses and local hospices to make life comfortable for those people we support at the end of their life.”

External health and social care professionals told us they had a close working relationship with this provider. One told us, “The provider works very well with me and is open to feedback. They always take my professional advice into consideration and implement recommendations to enhance the quality of care my clients receive. This approach strengthens our partnership which in turn benefits the clients we serve.” Another added, “Staff work closely with me to understand my client's needs and have worked directly with the local psychology service to implement behaviour support strategies.”

The provider worked closely with various external agencies including, GPs, district and palliative care nurses, occupational and speech and language therapists, and local authority commissioners and social workers.

Staff recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement. They told us any incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed to learn lessons.

The outcome of all these audits and checks were now analysed at regular intervals to identify performance shortfalls, learn lessons, and develop action plans to improve the home care and/or supported living service people received. Safeguarding concerns and complaints were routinely reviewed, analysed, and responded to with emerging themes identified.