Fareni Lifecare Ltd

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 found 2 breaches of the regulations, as the service did not have robust governance arrangements in place and had not recruited staff safely. The service was not being led in a way which promoted a shared direction and continuous improvement. The registered manager lacked effective oversight to monitor the care people received. There were no governance arrangements in place to drive improvement. There were no processes in place to monitor the performance of staff and their practice. Staff had not received any training, and were working unsupervised without necessary pre-employment checks in place. These significant shortfalls had not been identified by the registered manager, however they did take action in response to our assessment process.

This service scored 39 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We spoke with the registered manager and a staff member about the vision and direction for the service. Whilst they were able to explain to us the aims for the service, we were not assured this had been fully embedded within the staff team. We asked the service for a copy of their development plan. This did not identify the widespread shortfalls we found during the course of our assessment, and focused predominantly on the financial viability of the service.

There were no processes in place to monitor and improve the performance of the service. The service lacked clear direction due to poor oversight of the management team. The registered manager told us they plan to implement processes to improve this in response to our assessment findings.

The registered manager was not promoting a culture of continuous improvement at the service. They were reliant on staff to tell them how the service was performing, and did not know the needs of people who were in receipt of care. Staff knew peoples needs well from spending time with them, however the values and direction for the service had not been fully embedded within their practice.

The leadership arrangements in place at the service were found to be poor, and oversight of the performance of the service was not robust. There were no processes in place to ensure people received good care. Whilst the registered manager was open to our feedback, we were concerned they had not identified the widespread failings themselves ahead of our assessment. The registered manager, who was also the nominated individual, told us they plan to promote an exisiting staff member with more experience into the position of manager.

Staff and leaders told us they felt confident people would speak up without hesitation should they need to. The service had not received any complaints at the time of our assessment. The registered manager shared with us their plan to collect and analyse feedback from people more regularly in response to our assessment findings.

There was no formal process in place to capture and record peoples formal and informal feedback. However, staff and people told us they would discuss concerns together if they arose.

Staff were not encouraged or supported to share ideas and give feedback on their experiences in their roles. This feedback if gained would support improvement at the service. Staff did not have access to training, which meant we could not be assured of their skills and competence to deliver good care.

The provider did not have systems in place to ensure the recruitment process was robust. All staff were found to be working unsupervised without the necessary checks in place. In response to our feedback, the registered manager retrospectively undertook all checks on staff, however had not considered the significant risk this had exposed people to.

The registered manager demonstrated a lack of understanding around the responsibilities of their role. This placed people at significant risk of receiving poor care, as the leadership of the service lacked the skills to identify shortfalls and risks. In response to our feedback, the registered manager recruited a care supervisor, however they also lacked relevant experience and qualifications to ensure the service was well-led.

The registered manager had not identified and taken action to improve the failings at the service. The lack of governance processes in place meant that when things went wrong, they also went unnoticed. This included staff recruitment processes, medicines management and the lack of care plans in place.

People told us communication between staff members was good. However, we found the service lacked any robust processes for ensuring information was passed on effectively, which meant people were unknowingly put at risk of important information being lost.

Staff and leaders told us they had strong relationships with partner agencies involved in peoples care. They told us they shared information both verbally and by referring to peoples care records. As care records were not always in place, and contact with health professionals verbally was not consistently recorded, we were not assured this was being managed in a safe way.

The service did not share with us the contact details for healthcare professionals involved with the service.

Staff told us they shared information with relevant people over the telephone or instant messaging apps. This information was not always recorded in peoples records, therefore there was a risk that it could be lost. Whilst people were generally supported by the same staff members to ensure consistency, this reliance on staff to remember information shared with them was not sustainable or safe. The service had not considered the risks associated with this practice.

From speaking with the registered manager and a staff member, we were not assured they valued the importance of ongoing learning and development. Staff had not received even basic training to undertake their roles, and this had not been identified as a risk. The service was not innovative, and did not have a culture of continuous improvement.

The oversight of the service was poor, and the registered manager failed to implement processes to ensure people received safe care. There was a lack of value placed on the importance of learning and development. There were no processes in place to support a culture of continuous improvement.