Hales Group Limited - Waveney

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices but was working towards improving this further. People and relatives told us regular carers understood their preferences and delivered care in a way that mattered to them; however, this was not always the case when different and/or new staff attended. One person told us, “There are lots of different carers some are really youngsters. They are mostly okay and are safe [moving my relative].” Another said, “It’s more the small things. They [care staff] don't turn the lights off. They do microwave meals, but some don’t know how to use the microwave, and I have to explain it.”

The quality of care plans varied, with some providing detailed guidance about people, whilst others were very brief and not reflective of an individualised care plan. Daily care records were improving with the level of detail being more descriptive. The registered manager was in the process of updating care plans and staff had undertaken record keeping training.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Some people and relatives did not feel they always received continuity of care. One person told us, “I get a lot of different carers sometimes, they are okay, but I don’t know them as well.” Another said, “Some [care staff] are only 18 and have only been working 2 weeks. They don't know what to do.” Some people however told us they received a reliable service with staff they knew well. One person said, “I do feel fairly safe with the [care staff] they seem to understand about me as a person. They have tried to get suitable [care staff] not too loud or in your face and they will sit and chat with me.”

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices and social services. The registered manager was able to answer any questions in relation to the needs of the people using the service. The provider had an electronic call monitoring system. This enabled them to monitor visits in real time to identify emerging patterns such as delays, missed calls, or repeated changes of staff. The registered manager was using this with good effect and had oversight of where improvements were needed. Care plans included support people received from their relatives. Staff received training relevant to the needs of the people they supported, including some specific training such as learning disability, autism, and diabetes.

The provider supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Where required, important information including the complaints procedure, could be provided in accessible formats, including easy read, larger print and in languages other than English. People and relatives could view their care plans via a phone application if they wished to. People’s care records contained information on how to effectively communicate with them, but the quality of these varied. Some held detailed guidance, whilst others only contained limited guidance. However, staff understood people’s communication needs in practice.

The provider ensured that people were able to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The majority of relatives we spoke with felt they would be listened to if they raised complaints. One relative told us, “We have never had to raise a concern, but communication with the office is fair. If we needed to raise a concern, we would be happy to do so.” A person told us, “I haven’t had to make any complaints, the contact is fine and the manager came to check a couple of weeks back so all is good.” The registered manager kept a log of any complaints, and any ‘lessons learned’ were logged. They told us they planned to make calls to people more frequently to get their feedback routinely, particularly where new staff were attending visits. Surveys were sent to people and families. The service produced a ‘You said, we did’ survey analysis. The results of the 2026 survey reflected the findings of this inspection report where people wanted improvements in certain areas such as visit times, communication and carer approach.

The provider had systems in place to ensure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, feedback from people was mixed. Whilst some people were completely satisfied in their care delivery, others told us the support they received was inconsistent, as they were sometimes unsure whether staff would arrive on time or be delayed. Some people did not feel confident in the newer staff delivering their care. This meant there was a risk people may not receive equitable access to services. However, the registered manager was effectively working to improve people’s experience and was regularly monitoring this via the electronic call data. For example, they completed a weekly continuity report. This helped them to identify shortfalls and monitor if improvements were being made week on week.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. We saw examples where people with complex social care needs were referred to specialist agencies who could support them ensuring a holistic approach. Staff told us they were confident in carrying out their role and felt they were effectively equipped with training to meet the individual needs of people. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. This helped staff to understand the importance of equality, diversity, inclusion, stereotypes, and discrimination, and how to treat everyone with dignity. One staff member told us, “I do feel that I am treated equally and my culture is respected. I do not feel I have ever been discriminated against.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. At the time of the inspection, the service was not supporting anyone with end of life care. However, staff told us they had done so and received end of life training to ensure they were equipped with the skills to support with this area of people’s care. One staff member told us, “I have on more than one occasion [supported people at end of life]. I received training when I first started this job but also have received ongoing support/training throughout the process.” Another said, “I have supported many clients in my time working at Hales that have been end of life care. Knowing what to do to help, how to best make people comfortable and support for families.”

Where people had ReSPECT forms in place (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) these were accessible to staff and held within people’s care records. This meant people’s care preferences for emergencies were known.