G&C HEALTHCARE 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

Staff were positive about the support they received and the approachability of the registered manager and management team. There were defined roles and responsibilities for the management team. Staff received checks on their competency to ensure people were supported appropriately. There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and medicines administration. Some improvements were needed to recruitment and rotas quality assurance systems to ensure these were consistently effective at identifying areas for improvement. The provider was responsive to our feedback and took swift action when we shared feedback.

This service scored 57 (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.

Staff were unanimous in their feedback they felt able to report concerns to the office and management team. Staff knew who the registered manager was and felt they were approachable. One staff member said, “[The registered manager] has listening ability, if we have problems you can call them and they will listen.” Staff told us they felt supported in their role. There were mechanisms for staff to feedback, such as 1-1s or staff meetings where they could discuss any queries or difficulties they may be experiencing. A staff member told us, “They call me to check I am ok. They check I’m not stressed.”

There was an office-based team in place which supported the management and oversight of the quality and safety of the service. There were clearly defined roles and responsibilities, so staff knew what they were focusing on.

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 had competency checks to ensure they supported people appropriately, such as with moving and handling and medicines. One staff member said, “They [staff from the office] come time to time to see how we are giving medicines.” Staff were aware of medicine management processes in place, such as count sheets so stock levels could be monitored. The management team were keen to show us the governance systems they had in place. We were told of how improvements had been made following feedback. For example, if a staff member was not skilled at cooking for people, extra training was provided to improve this area.

There was an audit in place to check staff recruitment files. However, this audit did not fully check all the necessary information was in place, so some omissions had not been identified. Staff recruitment information, containing a lot of personal information, was not stored securely as there was no door on the storage cupboard. This was rectified following our feedback and we saw evidence of this. The provider told us work was going to reduce call cramming on the rota system. However, there were still multiple duplicate calls so staff would have to prioritise which call to go to themselves, so this was not resolved. The previous inspection rating was not being displayed on the provider’s website or in the office, which is a requirement. Following our feedback, this was addressed in both places, and we saw evidence of this. There were other systems in place which worked effectively. There were regular checks of the medicines in people’s homes to ensure stock levels matched records. We were confident that staff had their knowledge checked. There were reviews of accidents and incidents to look for trends and areas for improvement. There were also regular reviews of people’s care plans and risk assessments to ensure they remained up to date. There was an application (known as an ‘app’) in place which staff had on their phones so the office team could update staff about changes in people’s needs and rotas, for example. Staff could also use this app to feedback about changes and share useful photos. This enabled regular communication.

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.