Hales Group Limited - Ipswich

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 75 (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 felt the care workers were kind and compassionate. A person told us, “They are all so polite”. Another person said, “All of them are very kind.” A person’s relative said, “They're very caring and respectful… Some are more caring than others, some are more familiar and will say hello.” Another relative said, “They are caring, they’ll come in and laugh and joke with [family member].” A person’s representative told us the care workers were respectful, “100% all the time, and respect their privacy and independence… They are an absolute pleasure.” A care worker told us, “Staff genuinely care about the wellbeing and dignity of each individual, and we all work together to ensure people are safe, comfortable, and respected.”

People confirmed their privacy was being respected. A person said, “I’m always given privacy.” People’s care plans included guidance for care workers in how to ensure people’s privacy whilst providing 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.

The registered manager told us improvements were ongoing in people’s care plans to ensure they were person centred, this was confirmed in the service’s improvement plan. People’s care plans included information about if people were diagnosed with dementia, and how this impacted them. The care plans varied in quality, not all of people’s health conditions were explained including how they affected their daily living. However, there were specific care plans relating to, for example diabetes and Parkinson’s. People’s care plans included ‘about me’ documents which identified personal information about their background and family.

People’s care plans included their aims and goals relating to the care provision and identified the risks if people’s needs were not met.

A person’s representative told us how they felt the service was flexible and had ensured care visits were scheduled to ensure the person could visit a venue in the community in relation to their spiritual needs. A person’s relative told us their family member’s regular care workers were, “Absolutely brilliant… they are very skilled in following the care plan and helping my [family member] with everything.I cannot praise them highly enough.”

Care workers and other staff working in the service received training in equality and diversity, dementia, learning disabilities, autism and mental health.

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

People’s care plans included people’s preferences in relation to the care they received, including their likes and dislikes. Records showed people had been consulted and had consented to the care which was planned and delivered.

We received feedback which demonstrated people had choice and control over their own care. A person told us, “There was an assessment a few months ago.” Another person said, “I am actively involved, everything is up to me.” A person’s representative told us, “They do listen and consult, [person] won’t make any decisions unless I am there, so I make sure I am there and if by phone put [person] on loudspeaker, same for review calls so [person] can hear and make decisions.” A relative said, “If I phone the office, they listen to what I've got to say and they do try to put things in place that I have suggested and then I see the evidence, so that's a good thing.”

People were supported to make decisions about the care workers who attended their home. A person’s representative told us the service were responsive when the person had said they did not gel with care workers, and preferred they did not visit them, this was respected. This was confirmed in records, where people had stated they had a preference, this was considered in the scheduling of visits and the systems in place supported this.

People’s care plans included the areas of their care they could attend to independently and the areas they required support with. People told us their independence was respected. However, a relative said, “I feel that some of the staff feel my [family member] is more independent than [family member] actually is… those who are less experienced do not seem to recognise the nuances of [family member’s] Alzheimer's illness… My [family member’s] memory is very much of their "old self" and not what they are actually capable of now."

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.

People’s care plans included their likes and dislikes and their preferences regarding their care provision. A member of staff showed us the care worker’s hand-held devices which identified the care required at each visit.

The notes completed by care workers were detailed and evidenced people were listened to at each visit and actions taken to support people where required. For example, a person had wished to go back to bed after their morning visit, the notes showed the person received the support they were required and was supported to return to bed as they wished. Another person had told the care worker they felt down, the notes showed they had spent time speaking with the person about their family which had cheered them up. In addition, notes demonstrated care workers had acted when people had told them they had issues, this included reporting a broken alarm and chasing the person’s food delivery and checking they had what they needed until the delivery arrived.

A person’s relative told us how they felt the service was flexible and responded to their family member’s needs when they had called the office to advise their family member needed assistance, “There could be no forewarning of this, and they went and sorted [family member] out. You can't ask for more than that."

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We received positive feedback from care workers about them being cared for and valued. A care worker said, “The team works collaboratively, and management show genuine care for both staff and service users. I feel valued in my role and supported to deliver the best possible care.” Another care worker told us, “I feel the service is well-led and communication is generally clear. Mutual respect amongst staff is high, staff welfare is prioritised, and the support is encouraging.”

Staff had access to information of support available including the provider’s employee assist programme, which was detailed in the staff handbook provided to all staff. In addition, in the office we saw various posters advising of support staff could access for themselves and for people using the service, including domestic abuse helpline.