Golden World Care Service

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 partially addressed the outstanding warning notice we issued at their last inspection in relation to how they operated their governance systems. This was because we found the provider had made improvements and met most of the outstanding breaches of regulation we identified at their last inspection. However, further improvements were still required because we found that although the providers governance systems were being better managed, it had still failed to pick up a number of new issues we identified at this inspection in relation to the way some records were not being appropriately maintained or made immediately available on request. This represented a continued breach of regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, but not the warning notice. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. People were complimentary about the way the service was managed, and how approachable the office-based managers and all the senior and care 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 office-based managers had a clear vision for the service and told us they routinely used individual and group supervision meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles.

The service aimed to give people consistently safe and good-quality care and staff worked together to try and achieve this. Individual staff supervision and team 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 service is managed very well. The managers are approachable, responsive, and ensure that we have the resources and support needed to provide high-quality care.” Another member of staff added, “I think the service is well-managed. The managers at the office are approachable, and there is effective communication within the team.”

The managers had the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the service, which they did so with integrity, openness and honesty. A person told us, “The managers and staff in the office make sure everything runs smoothly.” A relative added, “I know how difficult it can be for them, but I do think the office-based managers try their hardest to get it right.”

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff told us they were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during regular meetings with their managers and fellow co-workers. A member of staff said, “We have regular meetings and surveys where we can share our views. For example, we had a team meeting and suggested staff support people who live in the same area to help us be on time for our call visits, which the company quickly took action to make happen.” Another member of staff said, “We are regularly encouraged to share our views through team meetings and feedback forms. For example, I suggested improvements to the process of scheduling of call visits, and the managers took this on board and made adjustments that have made the process much smoother.”

The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service, their relatives, and staff who worked for them. They used a range of methods to gather people’s views about the quality of the care they received from this provider. This included regular welfare check telephone calls, in-person home visits, care plan reviews, individual supervision and team meetings, and satisfaction surveys.

Staff told us they felt supported by the office-based managers and senior staff who treated them well. They also said they worked well together as part of a varied and diverse work force.

The provider valued and respected the equality and diversity of its staff team and treated staff fairly.

It was clear from feedback we received the office-based managers and staff they now had a better understanding their governance roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing, monitoring and managing the quality and safety of the service they provided people. A member of staff said, “Managers regularly conduct spot checks on us during our call visits to ensure we are following procedures correctly and maintaining high standards of care. These checks also provide an opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns we might have with our line managers.” Another member of staff added, “The office-based managers and senior staff conduct regular spot checks on us to ensure we’re following the correct procedures and to give us feedback to improve our working practices.”

The provider’s quality and safety monitoring systems had improved since the last inspection, though further improvements were still needed, as new issues identified during this assessment had not been detected by their governance systems. For instance, some health and safety risk assessments of people’s homes and moving and handling risk management plans were either outdated or missing for individuals requiring them. This issue was addressed by the last day of the inspection, but it remained a concern that the provider’s systems had again failed to identify these record-keeping lapses. The provider had developed and implemented an improvement plan, as required following the previous inspection, addressing issues related to safeguarding, risk management, medicines, staff training, and complaints. The provider was also transitioning to electronic systems, including electronic call monitoring and medicines administration, which had significantly enhanced their capability to monitor real-time staff attendance and medication management. These systems automatically flagged and notified office-based managers if staff missed a scheduled call or did not administer medicines as prescribed. Outcomes from these electronic and other routine audits were now regularly analysed to identify performance gaps, learn lessons, and implement action plans to improve the service provided. Managers demonstrated an understanding of their regulatory responsibilities concerning notifiable incidents, and our records confirmed that appropriate, timely notifications were made to the CQC. The previous CQC inspection report was clearly displayed in the provider’s office and accessible on their website. Displaying CQC ratings is a legal requirement to inform people, prospective clients, and visitors of our judgments.

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.

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. A member of staff said, “We work closely with community professionals such as nurses, social workers, and occupational therapist, and I value their input. For instance, an occupational therapist provided recommendations for adaptive equipment for someone I support with mobility needs, which we successfully implemented.” Another member of staff added, “After receiving advice from a community nurse regarding wound care, we adapted our practices to better meet the skin integrity needs of people we support, leading to improved outcomes.”

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, social workers and Local Authorities. This was underpinned by a policy of relevant information being shared with appropriate services within the community or elsewhere.

The registered manager encouraged an open and transparent culture about safety at the service where people receiving a service, their representatives and staff could raise concerns without fear about what might happen. Managers and staff also told us incidents and accidents, safeguarding concerns, and complaints involving the people they supported were always logged and analysed. These incidents were routinely reviewed to determine potential causes and to identify any actions they needed to take to reduce the likelihood of similar incidents reoccurring. Staff confirmed information about any lessons learnt were always shared with them during individual and group supervision meetings with their line manager. 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.

The provider now had an up to date and sufficiently detailed complaints/concerns policy in place which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and what the process was for dealing with their concerns. This policy was given to people who received a home care service from the provider. People said they were aware of the provider’s complaints policy and how to raise any concerns or complaints they might have. A person said, “I know now to make a complaint if I need too.” The providers records showed us complaints were now logged and responded to in an appropriate and timely manner. When required lessons were now learnt when concerns had been raised, investigated and upheld, ensuring the service continue to improve when things had gone wrong. A relative told us, “I am happy they [the provider] did listen to the concerns I raised about the care my [family member[ received and that action was taken to fix the problem we had with one member of staff.” The provider now learnt lessons when things went wrong. The office-based managers continually reviewed incidents and accidents, safeguarding concerns, and complaints, to determine potential causes and identify any actions they needed to take to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence and learn lessons so they could continually improve. This information was shared and discussed with staff during individual and group meetings.