Hearts of Care Agency

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people were not always well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

Whilst people expressed that they were generally happy with their care and support, our assessment found the care provided did not meet the expected standards. Due to the shortfalls identified during this assessment, we could not be assured that people received a high quality, compassionate and consistently safe service. We have taken these concerns into account when rating this key question. 

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People told us that care staff treated them with kindness. A person said, “They are gentle. They are kind and caring.”

Staff were not always respectful of people’s dignity, as the language recorded by staff in people's daily notes was not always dignified. The language used in some care plans was judgemental and not in line with best practice. For example, a person’s care plan refers to ‘bad behaviour.’

The provider had not always ensured an open culture with other organisations and key partners

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, and protected characteristics.

The manager assured us people were in control of their support and their wishes and day-to-day choices were respected. They told us staff completed online training and knew how to respect people’s rights and how to promote their independence. Staff told us how they promoted people’s independence when supporting them, for example, with personal and oral care. However, people’s care plans were written in a way which did not support this.

The provider did not always ensure people’s care was planned in a way which put them in the centre of any arrangements and decisions made. When people could experience different triggers of distress and challenges in their day-to-day lives, the support strategies in place did not always promote people’s independence.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

While the relatives we spoke with expressed that they were happy with the care provided our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. For example, people were not fully supported to have choice and control over all aspects of their lives. Although people and their relatives told us people were in control of their support and their independence was encouraged, we found this was not always the case, and people were not empowered to make decisions or choices about issues that were important to their health and wellbeing.

Staff spoken with demonstrated an understanding of the importance of giving people choice and obtaining consent. However, their wider understanding of the MCA was lacking with regard to best interest decisions.

The provider did not have a robust process to demonstrate people had been consulted in the planning and review of their care and support needs. This meant we could not be assured people always had full choice and control of their care, support and how this was to be delivered. 

The provider did not always understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us they found staff approachable if they had concerns. A relative said, “I would speak to them [staff] if I had any concerns.”

Staff and the manager did not always demonstrate best practice around assessing mental capacity, supporting decision-making and best interest decision-making. This demonstrated an infringement of people’s human rights.

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.

Prior to, and during our inspection we received anonymous concerns regarding how the provider treated staff who were working under a Certificate of Sponsorship visa. However, staff spoken with during our inspection did not raise any concerns.

Staff told us they attended regular staff meetings, and any concerns were dealt with by the management team.