OASIS West London Office

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

We assessed 7 quality statements in the well-led key question and identified 1 breach of regulation, good governance. The provider’s audits and checks of the quality of care and other aspects of the service were not effective and had not identified the concerns we found during our assessment. However, staff, people and relatives told us they thought the service was managed well. People and relatives told us they could raise any concerns with the registered manager, and they would be addressed. Feedback from the local authority was positive about the provider and how they have managed and implemented improvements.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and leaders told us they were clear on the organisation’s goals and vision for the future. The registered manager promoted an open culture within the organisation. Staff were encouraged to speak up and raise concerns if they needed to. Staff had team meetings to seek guidance and advice on delivery care.

Staff and leaders spoke to us about their plans to make improvements to service delivery. There was an open culture amongst the team, staff were encouraged to speak up and they did not fear any repercussions if they did.

Staff we spoke with told us the registered managers and other leaders were inclusive and compassionate. One staff member said, “Yes, I have a manager who is so emphatic”. And “Great team, great manager weekly manager meetings, what we have achieved what we need to do”. Another staff member said, “We can care for anyone, people of all backgrounds and disabilities that we are trained to, always willing to make a positive impact on people’s lives."

The provider had recruited leaders and care coordinators who had the experience, knowledge, and skills for their role. The registered manager worked in an open and transparent way. Operating an open-door policy, they were available for staff and people using the service when they were needed. There were effective systems in place to ensure people or staff could reach staff at any time. For example, the provider used a duty call out of hours system.

Staff and leaders told us they could speak up at any time. Staff said they would use the whistleblowing procedures if they needed to. Staff told us they wanted to protect people from abuse and therefore it was important to have an avenue to do this safely.

Complaints from people using the service were addressed and well managed by the provider. People, relatives, and staff told us they could make a complaint and this would be taken seriously and addressed. The registered manager encouraged staff to raise issues of concern. There was an effective system in place to deal with complaints and policies and procedures supported this process.

The registered manager told us they had a diverse workforce and staff could seek guidance through team meetings and 1:1 supervision. Staff we spoke with were praiseworthy of managers and leaders, Staff did not have any concerns in regard to equality.

The service had a diverse workforce which reflected the people they supported. There were policies and procedures in place focused on equality and diversity. This meant staff had guidance to use if needed. Staff had training in equality and diversity.

Staff and leaders told us they obtained feedback from people and relatives through phone call monitoring, surveys, and review of care needs. Feedback was used to drive improvements. For example, the provider made improvements to the way they communicated with people when staff were late for calls or if staff were off sick. This meant people could be confident that their feedback was valued and listened to.

Quality assurance systems were not always effective. Care plans and risk assessments lacked details in them to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. Auditing systems were not always effective as they did not identify shortfalls that we found during our assessment. For example, we found daily logs were audited but failed to pick up on the lack of details outlining what care and support had been provided to people. Care records were audited but had failed to pick up on gaps in recording information. This shows that auditing systems were not effective enough. As a result, any gaps in information or concerns about the quality of care would not be addressed and corrective actions would not be taken in a timely manner. This could potentially lead to people being placed at risk of harm.

People and relatives told us the care agency was supportive. Everyone we spoke with was positive about the care being provided by the agency. People could be confident that the agency would make referrals to other agencies if needed, for example a health care professional. People told us if they wanted to pursue activities or needed additional support within their community they could have this addressed by the care agency.

Staff and leaders told us they worked well with the local authorities and health care professionals. Evidence from service records showed people had been supported by a range of local teams.

The local authority spoke positively about the care agency and how well they worked with them. The local authority had established a good working relationship with the provider. The care agency was open to feedback and had taken on board any input from the local authority. This meant people could be confident that the care agency was committed to improving the quality of care.

Effective systems were in place to foster good working relationships with community health care teams and the local authorities. These relationships supported people to receive joined up care.

Staff and leaders told us they had an extensive improvement plan in place. Staff and leaders were able to tell us about some of these improvements and why they were necessary. For example, staff had been provided with several additional training courses. This was to ensure staff could become more confident and competent in their role. Staff told us the new courses were helping them in their role.

There was an ongoing improvement plan in place. The staff team had worked hard to implement some changes as part of the plan. There were steady improvements being made. For example, there was a new electronic system being implemented. This meant staff could update care records effectively and in real time. Managers and leaders had access to this information and could make decisions about care quickly if required . However, at our last inspection the service was rated inadequate. At this inspection we found that the provider had not been able to embed and sustain necessary improvements.