• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Hales Group Limited - Waveney

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Jarrold House, Grove Road, Lowestoft, NR32 1EB

Provided and run by:
Hales Group Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Good

Updated 20 January 2026

Date of Inspection:3 March to 27 March 2026.Hales Group Limited – Waveney is a domiciliary care agency supporting people in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received the regulated activity personal care. CQC only assesses where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of the inspection 31 people were being supported with the regulated activity of personal care. This was our first assessment of this service.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. At the time of the assessment, the service was supporting 1 person with a learning disability. As they were not receiving the regulated activity of personal care, we did not review their care records, however, the registered manager demonstrated they had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’, and was able to describe how this guidance was implemented in line with people’s care needs.

There were systems in place to assess risks to people and ways to reduce them, but the quality of risk assessments varied, with some risks being very well detailed whilst others were not. Records did not always describe people’s needs and how staff would support them. This was important as there were new staff working at the service who required accurate guidance to enable them to provide care which was effective and safe. The registered manager who started in post in September 2025, had already identified the need for improvement in risk assessments. Additional digital tasks were added to the information seen by staff on a daily basis so they understood the risk to people. This included risks such as diabetes, falls, choking, and skin integrity. This action reduced the risk of harm whilst risk assessments were being updated.

Safeguarding concerns about people using the service were reported to the local authority safeguarding team, however, the provider had not always submitted statutory notifications to CQC as required. People told us they always received their visits by care staff, but some experienced a delay in care staff arrival times. Some people felt the newer staff needed additional training, and better consistency of staff visiting them so they could build trust. The registered manager was monitoring this weekly to try and improve people’s experience. Governance systems were in place which identified where improvements were needed. This included audits of medicines records, care records and the quality of documentation. Improvements were made as a result of the audits being undertaken, for example, the quality of recording in medicines records and daily notes. Where improvements had been identified, additional training was implemented, such as record keeping workshops and medicines refresher training.

People were supported to stay healthy and to access external healthcare services.

During and following the inspection, the registered manager and regional manager took action to begin rectifying areas which required improvement.

People's experience of the service

Updated 20 January 2026

During the assessment, we received feedback from 14 people who used the service and 6 relatives.

Feedback we received from people and relatives was very mixed. Whilst some people told us they received an excellent service with reliable carers, others did not feel happy with the service they received, and in some cases were looking to change care provider. Issues people told us about ranged from receiving too many different carers, to visits being unreliable in relation to the times they arrived.

A theme that did keep emerging from people’s feedback was that the younger and newer staff were not as confident, and some people told us they had to explain everything they needed during their care visits. One person told us, “Some of them are only 18 and have only been working 2 weeks. They don't know what to do.” Another told us, “Some of the carers are very young and don't have the life skills to work as a carer, They don't seem to have the life skills to run a home never mind be a carer. They don't do it deliberately they just don't think.” A third person told us, “They don't always listen and I am trying to teach them. They are supposed to cook but they can’t do [food preference] in a microwave.”

Other people experienced a good service. One person told us, “I suffer from [condition] so have a core group of 4 to 6 carers which does help me. I do feel fairly safe with the carers, they seem to understand about me as a person as I tend to isolate when worried.” Another said, “They are lovely people. They make me feel safe having the skills and they are delightfully bright, courteous and very helpful.” A third person told us, “They are marvellous. We feel safe with them and they are so helpful and will do anything for us, even collect scripts from the chemist if we need.”

The new registered manager had been in post for 6 months and when told about the mixed feedback, they acknowledged improvements were needed. We discussed the themes of the feedback with the registered manager and they told us, “I am working towards gaining back people’s trust. I am aware there have been issues in the past, but we will make the improvements. I am aiming to make more frequent calls to people to get their feedback.”