Care Relief Team Limited - Unit 8 The Bridge Business Centre Also known as CRT - Derbyshire Home Care

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

Plans to improve compliance and service delivery had been developed by the provider but not yet fully implemented and sustained. Provider audits had not picked up the issues with times of calls or call durations resulting in noncompliance with LA recording systems. Improvements to communication with staff and having a shared vision were part of the service action plan but not yet established. The provider had not ensured policies and procedures were fully accessible and implemented by all staff. Not all staff were aware of the core purpose and values of the organisation contained within the stakeholder policy. Not all staff understood how to access the organisation’s whistleblowing policy.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most of the staff we spoke with did not know the vision and strategy of the organisation. Staff told us they knew staff meetings took place but were not certain how frequently. Some staff did not attend meetings often due to limitations on their availability, for example, childcare. The provider responded to feedback and planned a wider range of team meeting dates. One staff member told us updates from meetings were shared by messages from the office using an electronic application.

The provider had taken action to improve outcomes for people in response to feedback received from stakeholders. Feedback from people and staff informed the development of action plans to improve trust and communication, these actions had not yet been fully established. Planned actions included a series of team meeting dates each month to offer staff more opportunities to attend and records of the meetings to be shared with all staff.

Time for staff to travel between calls or to have a break was not consistently identified. Some staff told us they went from call to call and did not have the opportunity for a break, other staff described how regular breaks and time to travel between calls were included in their rota. Staff did not have the opportunity for regular supervision meetings. One staff member told us they had not had a supervision meeting since working there for over a year. Another member of staff told us supervision meetings were not timetabled but they knew the door was always open for them to have a chat.

The provider included actions in their service improvement plan to offer more consistent and effective ongoing support for staff. This included quarterly planned supervision meetings plus appraisals. The provider also planned to introduce drop-in sessions for staff where staff could have a one-to-one discussion with a manager. These plans were not yet consistently rolled out.

Not all staff we spoke with knew how to access the organisation’s whistleblowing (raising concerns) policy. However, they understood how to raise any concerns with the provider. Some staff expressed concerns with trust due to changes in manager. One member of staff who had raised a concern with the provider did receive feedback on how improvements would be made. Another member of staff told us communication was “one sided” and did not receive feedback on how improvements would be made following concerns being raised.

The organisation had a whistleblowing policy. The provider had not ensured all staff knew how to access this.

Most staff believed the organisation implemented a policy to support equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace. None of the members of staff we talked to had experienced issues relating to equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us they would raise any problems they encountered.

The provider had developed a plan to implement more effective and proactive procedures to engage with all staff.

Staff understood how to report incidents and the importance of doing so. Staff confidence in support by the organisation in meeting their responsibilities was varied. One staff felt unsupported and “left to it” by the organisation. Another member of staff told us they felt supported by the organisation through training and contact with leaders.

The provider had a quality assurance policy and carried out audits to monitor the quality of service delivery. The provider did not always implement actions to address the areas identified for improvement. For example, where records identified call time and duration variances the provider did not address these to meet the requirements of the commissioner.

People or their families told us care staff were lovely and they were happy with the carers who visited them. One person described how the service was able to be flexible to meet a change in their needs. People also identified to us some areas where the service could improve. The main topic in feedback was for consistency of carers and improvements in communication.

Staff described how they worked effectively with professionals and how care records were kept up to date. Staff were aware not all people receiving the service, or their families accessed the electronic application therefore they did not immediately see the most up to date information.

Commissioners of the service identified where improvements were required by the provider. The provider worked with partners to plan improvements to meet compliance, however, the provider did not successfully implement the improvements required. The commissioner took action in response to noncompliance. The provider audit records showed variances in the times and call durations which had not improved.

Systems implemented by the provider did not identify all areas for improvement. The provider failed to effectively implement an action plan to make some of the improvements when they were identified. The provider reviewed the improvement plan developed previously and updated it to work towards achieving compliance.

Most staff were aware of the forms sent out by the provider to people and staff seeking feedback. Not all staff were confident feedback would be listened to and improvements made by the organisation. Some staff described where improvements had been made to outcomes for people.

The provider worked with partners in response to concerns raised and developed an action plan to improve ways of working. The provider did not meet all the requirements of the agreed improvement action plan. Action was taken by a commissioner in response to noncompliance by the provider.