AMG Care Services 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

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement. The service continued to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. At our last assessment governance systems and audits were not always effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement. While some areas of improvement had been made the service’s governance processes had not identified shortfalls we found during this assessment.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Governance systems and audits were not always effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement. The service had some quality and monitoring systems. However, not all monitoring of the service was consistent or effective in identifying issues with care provision. Medication audits were not in place for all people who received support with administering their medicines and were not identifying the issues in this area we found during our assessment. Care records lacked outcomes for people in some places and did not always contain relevant risks assessments, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions. We found specific risk assessments for catheter care, manual handling and diabetes were not in place. This meant staff did not have sufficient guidance to know how to safely support people. We did not find anyone had come to harm because of this. The service started to update risk and mental capacity assessments during our assessment and provided evidence to support this. These shortfalls had not been identified by the governance systems in place at the time of our assessment. The new manager was in the process of making improvements into how information about the service was captured. However, care reviews were carried out regularly and recorded people’s preferences and what they wanted to happen. At the last assessment, we found information gathered at care reviews was not being updated into people’s care records, this had now improved. Office staff who co-ordinated care for people were knowledgeable about people. They worked with people in a person-centred way to deliver support people wanted. Staff we spoke with spoke highly of office staff, they told us managers were approachable and listened to staff. The service had an established work force, carers were generally experienced and based locally which helped with delivering care in a timely way. Staff told us the felt supported in their role, they said, “management are approachable”.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. There had been improvements made since our last assessment. The service had implemented an electronic system to implement and monitor due dates for areas such as care plan reviews, supervisions and spot checks. We saw evidence of the care manager’s action plan and some of the improvements the service is planning, this included linking staff induction training to the care certificate. The views of staff and people were regularly actively sought. Staff had completed various training courses to develop their knowledge. Staff told us they receive updates from management and can communicate with each other via an app on their phones and were kept updated with future plans for the service.