GGW 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

Based on the findings of this assessment we found the service had improved and addressed the outstanding breaches we identified at their last inspection for this key question. This meant the service was now consistently managed and well-led. This was because at this assessment we found the provider had followed the action plan we required them to send us after their last inspection and improved how they operated their oversight and scrutiny systems which were now effectively managed. However, although the provider had made improvements and was now moving in the right direction, we have only changed their rating from inadequate to requires improvement because they still need to demonstrate to us they can continue improving how the service is managed over a more sustained period of time. People were complimentary about the way the service was managed, and how approachable the office-based managers and all the staff were. The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people receiving a service, their relatives, and staff working for them. The provider worked in close partnership with external health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people's packages of care and support.

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.

Managers and staff told us they aimed to give people they supported the best quality person-centred care they could. They worked well together as a team. The managers had a clear vision for the service and told us they routinely used individual supervision and appraisal meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles.

The service aimed to give people consistently good care and staff worked together to try and achieve this. Individual staff supervision and appraisal meetings were used by the provider to remind staff about their organisations underlying core values and principles.

Staff told us the service was well-managed by the office-based managers and their supervisors. They said they received all the support they needed from their line managers. A member of staff remarked, “The office-based managers are always on the end of the phone or often come out to visit us during our scheduled call visits to offer their advice and support.” Another member of staff added, “The agency has had its fair share of problems recently, but overall I think the managers work well together and definitely have the right knowledge and experience to make this place good again.”

The managers had the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the service, which they did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns and ‘blow the whistle’ if they suspected any wrong doing. They were confident that the managers would listen if they did raise any concerns. They said the managers had an open door policy and were receptive to any feedback.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place. This gave staff details about how to raise concerns about poor practice and the steps available to them to resolve these.

Staff told us managers treated them well, without discrimination and they were part of a varied and diverse work force. Staff said the managers respected their cultural wishes.

Managers told us they did not discriminate when recruiting staff and staff were employed based on their values and competency they demonstrated at interview. Records showed staff had received training in Understanding Equality and Diversity.

It was clear from feedback we received from the office-based managers and care staff they now had a better understanding of their governance roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing, monitoring and managing the quality and safety of the service provided.

The provider had developed an improvement plan and taken action to improve the service, including how to manage risks, medicines, safeguarding, staff recruitment, staff training and support, governance systems, and how people were treated. The office-based managers demonstrated a better understanding of the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure the service people received was person-centred and safe. For example, since our last inspection the provider had appointed an external consultant to advise them about how to improve their governance systems. In addition, effective audits were now carried out by the office-based managers. These audits checked that specific records and tasks were completed. The outcome of these audits and checks were analysed at regular intervals to identify performance shortfalls, learn lessons, and develop action plans to improve the service. These quality assurance systems had indicators that identified how the service was performing, areas requiring improvement and areas where the service was achieving agreed targets. The provider has transitioned to electronic systems for monitoring and managing call visits, care planning and medicines management, which had significantly improved how they now operated their governance systems. For example, the electronic systems automatically notified the office-based managers in real time if staff had failed to turn up for their scheduled call visit or had not administered a person’s prescribed medicines on time. We found no discrepancies with the way the provider kept records and had no issues accessing the providers electronic and paper records. The managers now understood their responsibilities in relation to their regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents. Our records showed appropriate, timely notifications were made to the CQC. The service's previous CQC inspection report was displayed in the provider’s office and on the provider's website.

People told us staff supported them to stay in contact with external health and social care professionals and agencies as and when they needed them. One person said, “The care staff monitor and follow all the instructions the district nurses [DN’s] gives them about how best to treat my pressure sores, which are now getting better because the DN’s and care staff from the agency work so well-together.”

The office-based managers told us they regularly consulted external health and social care professionals and agencies, welcomed their views and advice, and shared best care practice ideas with their staff team.

External health and social care professionals expressed being generally satisfied with the way the provider collaborated with them.

The provider worked closely with various external agencies including, GPs, district nurses, occupational therapists, social workers and Local Authorities. This was underpinned by a policy of relevant information being shared with appropriate services within the community or elsewhere.

It was clear from the feedback we received from managers and staff they recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure they maintained person-centred and safe care for people they supported.

Safeguarding concerns, complaints, accidents, incidents were all routinely reviewed, analysed, and responded to with emerging themes identified. Appropriate action was always taken in a timely manner to administer the risk of similar incidents reoccurring. Audits and checks, and the gathering of stakeholder feedback was routinely conducted by the office-based managers and senior staff to monitor and learn how to improve the quality and safety of the service they provided people.