Candlelight Homecare Service Limited (East Sussex)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and relatives told us they were treated with kindness and their dignity respected. One relative said, “They treat him with a great deal of dignity and respect, and [name] really likes both the carers, he has said that to me.” Another relative told us, “They [staff] will always chat with us, asking not only how [name] is, asking about me too and how am I doing.” A further relative said, ‘The best things about Candlelight Homecare is the carers. They are all willing to go the extra mile and we hope they will be able to continue right up to end of life care. We couldn’t get anything better any other place.” Another relative said, “The best thing for me is that it takes the strain of caring off me, which is what I struggle with, saving me a lot of anxiety and worry.”

People were able to choose whether they would like their care provided by male or female staff. One person said, “I did ask for no male carers, and they have kept to that.” Staff told us that during the recent period of difficulty when there were not always enough staff working this had not always been possible. However, this had now improved, and people’s preferences would be met. One male staff member told us that a person had told him they did not want male care staff. He told us the person explained this was not personal. The staff member told us he spent time talking to the person to reassure them that their decision was ok and would be respected. The staff member said, “I understood but I wanted to make sure they were ok before I left.” The staff member informed the office, and changes were made to the person’s care records.

Care plans reminded staff to maintain people’s dignity. For example, covering them with a towel when supporting them to undress for personal care.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care needs took into consideration people’s individual life choices and preferences. Some people were vulnerable due their age, general health, or frailty. Staff knew and understood people and worked with them to ensure their individual needs and preferences were met. One relative said, “If [name] wants something done differently, they will always try to incorporate it.” One person told us, “They [staff] chat with me, asking about what I need, treating me with respect all the time.” Staff knew people well and what was important to them. They used their knowledge when providing support.

When people started using the service they were asked for their preferred times of visits. As far as possible these were provided. If the time of choice was not available people were given alternative options and these were agreed before people started to use the service. If people wished to change visit times this would be supported depending on the availability of staff at that time. Whilst most people told us they received visits at their preferred times there had been concerns in relation to late or missed visits. One person told us, “The time keeping can be OK, but they had two off sick on Monday so they were short staffed, but there was no phone call to say there was a problem which would have been nice, it’s easy to worry a lot.” A relative told us, “They are very good indeed and we only have the same two carers one on each day. Their time keeping is good and they stay for the allotted time each visit.”

People and their relatives told us they generally received support on time, from a consistent staff team but this had not always happened since the recent merger. One relative said, “What we have now works OK but there is a lack of consistency. It needs a group of 3 carers as [name] needs to recognise them by sight.” Another relative told us, “We’ve just had the rota for this week, and it is all regular carers, but it is always better when there are less carers.”

The registered manager and nominated individual were aware of these concerns and acknowledged there had been disruption to the service. Call monitoring documentation and feedback from staff showed that this was now improving. Work was ongoing to resolve the issues and ensure people received support from a core team of staff at their preferred times.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and their relatives told us their independence was promoted. One relative said, “Though they do (promote independence) there is no need to encourage independence as [name] will try to do as much as he can himself and there is really good banter between them when he is being helped.”

Care plans included information about the importance of staying independent for people. Reminding staff what people could and wanted to do for themselves.

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to maintain and improve their independence as much as possible. One staff member said, “Care is to promote independence and help people learn to adapt, we want to support in people’s best interests.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded promptly when people’s needs changed and took action to keep people safe. Records showed staff contacted health professionals quickly when people became unwell and followed advice to provide support. Relatives told us about action staff had taken when people had become unwell to ensure they received the appropriate support. One relative told us, “‘If we need any changes, we just give them a ring, and they have been able to cope with that fine.” Another relative said, “The [staff] are very helpful and as we don't live just round the corner. They will do bits of emergency shopping, but they are really there to do personal care.”

The service had recently experience challenges relating to staffing levels due to the merger. The service had taken on additional people’s care, and a number of staff had left the service. In response to this the registered manager reviewed the capacity of the service. They reviewed the care they were providing and identified where they were no longer able to meet people’s needs. They worked with the local authority to ensure alternative and appropriate support was provided. They also stopped accepting people to support until staffing levels had been steadied. This helped to ensure people’s needs could continue to be met and responded to appropriately.

There was an on-call system where staff could be contacted until 10pm. Outside of these hours people were given information about who they should contact if they had any concerns.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us within the current team they felt supported both by the registered manager and their colleagues. However, they were unable to ignore the impact of the recent few months when the new service was purchased and merged with Candlelight. Staff were visibly upset by what had happened. They had felt unsupported throughout. They said whilst this did seem to be improving the impact was still felt by staff. One staff member said, “As far as I am concerned, the management and office staff were efficient, and colleagues have been pleasant to work with until recently when Candlelight bought the other company. I believe it brought a lot of pressure on everyone due to shortage of staff when staff started resigning. There was poor co-ordination of the rota as an outcome leading to unhappy staff and clients, but things are starting to shape up now.”

Most staff did acknowledge that there were improvements. One staff member said things had started to settle during the past weeks. During this time, the Nominated Individual had been present at the service. Some staff said that having them present been helpful as they felt they would be able to approach them in the future if they had concerns. Although positive changes were underway further time was needed for staff to feel completely comfortable that these changes would fully embed back into the service.

Staff told us before the changes they had been very happy working at the service. They had felt well supported by all they worked with and were confident that this would return. They told us the registered manager was approachable and would listen to any concerns. Where staff required flexible work patterns this, as far as possible, was accommodated.

Some staff had worked at the service for a long time, and this was rewarded with a long service award. Staff received birthday cards and vouchers at Christmas in recognition of their service