Archived: Hatzfeld Homecare Services

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of the inspection, 94 people received some element of support with their personal care. This is the service’s fourth inspection under its current registration. At the previous inspection, the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. At this inspection, they improved the overall rating to ‘Good’.

People told us staff made them feel safe when staff supported them. Effective processes were in place to reduce the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm and to people’s ongoing health and safety. There were enough staff to support people and staff arrival times were closely monitored to ensure sustained levels of punctuality. People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. The provider had processes in place to investigate accidents and incidents and to learn from mistakes.

People’s care was provided in line with current legislation and best practice guidelines. People felt staff were well trained and understood how to support them. Records showed staff received ongoing training, professional development and supervision. People’s nutritional needs were met and staff supported people effectively with their meals. Information was available to support staff with caring for people. Other health and social care agencies were involved where further support was needed for people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People liked the staff who supported them and they felt they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff communicated effectively with people and positive relationships between them had been formed. People were encouraged to do as much for themselves as possible and were involved with decisions about their care.

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out before joining the service to ensure staff were able to support them effectively. People’s care records were person centred and people told us staff respected their wished to have their care provided in the way they wanted. People felt staff responded to their complaints effectively, records viewed confirmed this. People’s diverse needs were discussed with them during their initial assessment and then during further reviews.

The registered manager carried out their role in line with their registration with the CQC. Notifiable incidents were reported to the CQC. The registered manager took an active role in ensuring the risks to people’s safety was acted on immediately. They were supported by a dedicated staff team and the provider in doing so. High quality staff performance was rewarded. People and staff were given the opportunity comment on how the service could be developed and improved. Auditing processes were in place and these were effective in identifying and acting on the risks to people’s health, safety and well-being.

On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by staff who made them feel safe when they were in their home. Staff could identify the potential signs of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reviewed. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People were happy with the way their medicines were managed, although we did identify some areas for improvement in relation to the recording in people medicines administration records (MAR).

People were supported by staff who completed an induction prior to commencing their role. They had the skills and training needed and their performance regularly reviewed to enable them to support people effectively. Staff communicated effectively with people. Some people raised concerns that new members of staff were not always introduced to them before they first came to their home.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had not always been followed when decisions were made about people’s care. People were supported to maintain good health in relation to their food and drink intake. People’s day to day health needs were met by staff. Further guidance for staff when supporting people living with epilepsy was needed.

People found the staff to be kind, and caring; they understood their needs and listened to and acted upon their views. People felt staff treated them with respect and they enjoyed positive, friendly relationships with staff. People were involved with decisions made about their care and were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates.

The majority of people did not require support with their hobbies or interests but they did feel that staff took an interest in what was important to them. People’s care records were person centred and focused on providing them with care and support in the way in which they wanted. People’s care records were regularly reviewed although a small number of people told us they did not think there care needs had been recently reviewed. People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint.

A review of current quality assurance processes was in the process of being carried out to ensure the provider’s various policies and procedures were adhered to. People were happy with the quality of the service they received overall. People spoke highly of the registered manager although some would welcome more contact with them. People were encouraged to provide feedback about the quality of the service and this information was used to make improvements. The whistleblowing procedure did not include details of how staff could report concerns to external agencies.

We spoke with or received questionnaires from twelve relatives of people who used the service. We looked at the support plans of six people who used the service.

People who used the service or their relative, where appropriate, were involved in decisions relating to their care. One relative we spoke with told us, 'My mother has been receiving the service for the past five months. The care plan was made after discussing it with us and we had a say in it.'

People felt safe and received care appropriate to their needs. Fourteen of the sixteen people who responded to our questionnaire rated the service as either 'good' or 'excellent."

There were enough experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staff were well trained and supported by the provider to deliver appropriate care and support. One person who used the service told us, 'All the carers that visit are efficient and helpful. Some I would like to call my friends. It's not just the care they provide but the company and friendly faces they bring too.'

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service they provide.