Ohio Home 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

The provider’s culture was open, responsive, positive and the management structure was clearly set out. The vision and values were easy to understand, and staff understood, followed them, and were aware of their responsibilities and accountability. Staff were comfortable raising any concerns they may have with the provider, and took responsibility for their own conduct. The service quality was regularly reviewed, and any required changes made to improve the care and support people received. This was conducted in a way that best suited people. The provider had established effective professional working relationships that promoted the needs of people including those outside its remit.

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 service had a clearly stated vision, direction, and culture that was shared within the organisation. The vision and values were developed and revisited through a structured, planned process in collaboration with people using the service, staff, and external partners. The culture was positive, compassionate, listening and promoted trust and understanding between the organisation and people using the service. This was focused on learning and improvement. There was a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights, and safe, high-quality, compassionate care was prioritised. Equality and diversity were actively promoted, and the causes of any workforce inequality identified, and action taken to address them.

The processes and systems promoted a shared direction, and culture. This enabled staff at all levels to understand the shared vision, values, and strategy, and how their roles helped in achieving them. They were developed through a structured planning process in collaboration with people, staff, and external partners. There was a positive, compassionate, listening culture promoting trust, and understanding between staff and people using the service that was focused on learning and improvement. The processes enabled a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights, and they prioritised safe, high-quality, compassionate care.

The registered manager and staff said the service culture was person-centred, open, inclusive, and empowering. The provider’s vision and values were easy to understand, and staff understood and followed them. The staff and registered manager were aware of their responsibilities, and accountability. Staff said they felt comfortable raising concerns they may have with the provider and take responsibility for their own conduct.

The processes measured service quality, were regularly reviewed, and any required changes made to improve the care and support people received. This was conducted in a way that suited people best. The provider had established effective professional working relationships that promoted the needs of people including those outside its remit.

Staff provided positive feedback regarding the registered manager’s leadership style, and how well run the service was. They said they were happy to speak up as they felt confident that they would be listened to and treated fairly. They were able to contribute their ideas about what they thought the service did well, what could be improved, and had ongoing opportunities to reflect on their working practices, and professional development.

There were processes and mechanisms that enabled staff to speak up, and staff views were recorded, and referred to when making improvements.

Staff told us they were treated equally, and the service was inclusive with a registered manager that treated everyone fairly. The work force was also diverse, and this enabled different cultural and religious needs to be met as well as care, and support needs. The registered manager and team said they strove to have a workforce that felt treated equally, fairly, and inclusively.

There were systems in place for the registered manager, and team to regularly review and improve the service culture regarding equality, diversity, and inclusion. This meant the provider could take action to reduce any disparities in the staff experience.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities regarding duty of candour, and staff understood their roles and its importance. Staff told us they were updated frequently with practical information not only about individual people using the service but also topics such as keeping safe best practice.

The service had systems that were part electronic, stored people's details, appointment schedules, and if tasks, support visits, and care plans were completed on time. Data collected was collated and used to update and improve the service provided. The provider’s quality assurance system contained key performance indicators that identified how the service was performing, any areas that required improvement and areas where the service was accomplishing or exceeding targets. Any areas needing improvement were then addressed. Monitoring and quality assurance audits took place at appropriate intervals. Our records demonstrated that appropriate notifications were made to the Care Quality Commission as required.

People and their relatives felt that the way staff provided care, and support was in partnership with them to make sure their needs were met, when and how they wanted.

Partners told us that the provider sign posted people and their relatives to other organisations that may be able to support people to maintain, and achieve further independence outside the service provided, and prevent and minimise social isolation. This helped to improve people's quality of life, and promote their social inclusion. Any changes to people's health and medical conditions were recorded in their care plans.

The provider had processes to maintain good working relationships with external healthcare and other services to provide integrated care that met people’s support needs and enabled them to live as independently as possible. This also helped people to keep healthy, and receive the ongoing healthcare support they required. Staff reported any health care concerns to the registered manager, and team who alerted appropriate health care professionals. They also supported people to access community-based health care professionals, such as their GP, to maintain and promote continuing independence through joined up healthcare.

The provider worked with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals to identify areas that required improvement, and improvement achieved regarding the quality of services people received. Feedback from other organisations and healthcare professionals was integrated and used to ensure the support provided was what people wanted and needed. This was with people's consent. Performance shortfalls were identified in the provider audits and progress made towards addressing them was recorded.

There were systems and processes in place to promote, and support learning, improvement, and innovation. The complaints system was regularly monitored and enabled staff and the provider to learn from and improve the service. People, their relatives and staff provided regular feedback to identify if people were receiving the care and support, they needed.