Archived: My Homecare Reading and Bracknell

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.

The provider was previously registered at a different address. The rating at the previous address was requires improvement.

At this assessment, the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care, staffing, and safe care and treatment.

This service scored 40 (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
Staff told us how they would protect people’s dignity whilst carrying out personal care, “During personal care I make sure windows and curtains are shut, start with upper, lower covered, talk through to person.”

People and their relatives provided mixed feedback. We heard “The carers are kind and gentle and always polite”, “The carers are pretty great really, some are better than others" and “Some carers, or maybe most are kind, but others can just rush through the visit because they are so short of time between clients.” We also heard, “Some carers seem rushed and not attentive” “and “The carers are polite enough but there isn’t much warmth.”

People and their relatives did not always feel staff listened to them and communicated with them appropriately. We heard, “I don’t feel management always listens or even wants to listen”, "I don’t feel the office listens to me at all. If they do change things to the way I want, they soon switch back" and “The office doesn’t communicate."

We consistently heard people’s personal information such as their names, and documentation was sent via the use of a social media app called WhatsApp.
 

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, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s individual risk assessments were often generic and not personalised to people’s specific needs. Care plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff on people’s needs, wishes and preferences. This limited staff’s ability to deliver person-centred care.

People and their relatives told us, “Sometimes the carers don’t seem to know my [person’s] needs at all” and "I end up taking care of all [person’s] needs myself as sometimes it’s just easier that way otherwise I spend my day having to explain things over and over again."

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.
People were not always supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing, where people had requested changes to their care which had not been implemented.

People were not always supported to understand their rights by using different ways to communicate as there was limited guidance in place to ensure staff understood how to communicate with people effectively.

We received mixed feedback about people’s care. We heard people were treated with respect “My [relative] is always treated with respect “and “They treat me with respect." However, we also heard "[Person] needs carers who understand [their] situation and can show patience", “One carer literally just comes in, sits in the corner, and does nothing” and “Timing is dreadful, carers can be 45 minutes or more late."
 

The provider did not always listen to and 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’s needs, views, wishes and comfort were not documented within their care plans, therefore staff had limited information and guidance to support people in times of preventable discomfort, concern or distress. For one-person, staff saw bruising on their wrist, staff asked the person about this bruise, however, there was no further action or follow up documented.

Where staff had raised concerns about bruising, these had been documented within incident forms. The registered manager had taken limited action to investigate these concerns. For one person, there had been 8 documented incidents of bruising within a 3-month period, the registered manager had documented they contacted a district nurse on two occasions. No further action had been taken to respond to the person’s immediate needs.

People and their relatives told us staff were not always alert to people’s needs or took time to communicate and engage people in discussions about their needs. We heard of communication issues. People told us, “Some carers don’t speak English so there is a complete lack of understanding on both sides”, “They [staff] seem to understand if we speak slowly” and “Sometimes the carers don’t seem to know my [relatives] needs at all.”

We also heard "[Relative] needs more robust care and people with more not only empathy but initiative too", and “If “[Relative] needs were or indeed become more complex I don’t believe the current service could keep [relative] safe.”

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 spoken with during the inspection raised concerns with us about lack of travel time, not being paid for travel time, changes to staff rotas without notice, having to work when they were unwell, working long hours and exhaustion. Team meetings documented staff had raised concerns, however, they were not documented, so could not be actioned, there were no actions available.

Staff told us they came into the office on their day off to receive supervision. Staff confirmed they had supervision every 3 months however, there were no objectives set. We also heard staff raised concerns in supervision which had not been actioned.

Relatives expressed concerned about staff support, “I’m not sure they get proper supervision or guidance” and “They treat the carers appallingly, they simply don’t have enough time to get from one patient to another,”

One staff member told us they felt supported by management, as they are available when needed and mentored them, when necessary, they listen, however, action is not always taken.

Supervision records were brief, did not include standing agenda items to address issues pretendant to roles, and did not follow up or address staff concerns as they did not have a space to document any.