Fosse Healthcare - Lincoln

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. We found the service did keep people safe but risks to safety were increased due to inconsistent care visit times.

The provider had good staff recruitment and induction processes in place, which meant staff were checked to ensure they were suitable for the role and trained to meet people’s needs. Staff would benefit from additional learning in relation to The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in addition to a clearer understanding of some people’s diagnosed conditions. Risks to people and their medicines and reducing the risks of infection and promoting safe environments were well managed and staff understood how to reduce the risk of avoidable harm and kept people safe.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We found people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s care records and feedback around health supported this.

People’s needs were assessed in line with current best practice, people were fully involved in this assessment and all subsequent reviews of their care and had given their consent. The staff worked with external professionals to ensure people had access to all health professionals and equipment they required to keep them safe.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We found people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

People gave mixed feedback about the care they received. They gave positive feedback about how staff supported them with personal care needs and were mostly happy with staff approaches. Records also showed staff to be caring and thoughtful. However, people felt some staff rushed them and they were frustrated that care was not always scheduled for agreed times. People felt office staff were not helpful when they raised concerns.

Staff mostly felt supported by management but were unaware of the values of the company or initiatives in place to help improve their wellbeing.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We found people’s needs were not always met.

People’s preferences were assessed and included in their care plans. However, these were not always upheld in practice, which caused some people to feel distressed.

We received mixed feedback about the responsiveness of complaints and how they were managed and people felt ignored and unheard. However, we found no evidence to support this in records of how complaints were received or responded to. Information was shared with people in ways they understood.

Where required, staff supported people to attend or access appointments with health professionals and worked with other professionals to help people work through barriers or inequalities to accessing healthcare.

Well-Led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high quality, person centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. While the registered manager understood there were still aspects of care to improve, we found the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted quality, person centred care and approaches.

We found there was good leadership in place and we received positive feedback about the registered manager. The manager and provider had clear auditing systems and reviewed the effectiveness and quality of care regularly. There were further improvements to be made in relation to communication and scheduling of care visit times to ensure consistent, quality care. The provider had plans in place for any areas that still needed to be improved and were aware of and working towards any concerns we found.

There was a good learning culture in place, with opportunities for staff to raise concerns or gain additional support. Staff told us they felt there was no discrimination and staff were treated equally.