Homecare For You Dudley

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 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 their relatives consistently spoke positively about the caring, compassionate and respectful approach of staff. Feedback indicated staff treated people as individuals and took time to provide support in a manner that respected their dignity and promoted their wellbeing.

One person told us, "They help me and they are reliable and just what a carer should be, or how you imagine a carer should be." A relative told us their family member was treated well and described staff as caring, kind and respectful in the way they provided support.

The registered manager identified the caring culture of the service as one of its key strengths. They told us staff were encouraged to go above and beyond when supporting people and to provide care tailored to people's individual needs, preferences and circumstances. The feedback we received from people and their relatives was consistent with this approach and demonstrated staff were committed to treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

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 using the service and their relatives felt staff knew them well and took time to engage with people in a way which suited them, 1 relative told us, “They have such a nice relationship with [person]. [Person] is pretty easy going. They do talk to [Person]. [Person] is a bit deaf and they will put [Person’s] hearing aids in.”

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

People told us staff supported them to maintain their independence and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible. Feedback from people using the service was overall positive and indicated staff respected their abilities and promoted choice in their day-to-day lives.

One relative told us, “I would say yes, I suppose staff do promote [Persons] independence.” A person told us, “Yes, staff promote my independence.” These comments demonstrated people felt staff encouraged and supported them to remain as independent as possible.

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.

The provider could not demonstrate concerns were always effectively followed through. Care plans and risk assessments were not consistently updated following incidents to reflect changes in people's needs or to reduce the risk of recurrence. In addition, safeguarding concerns identified within records were not always recognised or escalated as required. This meant opportunities to review risks and implement appropriate measures were sometimes missed.

We saw evidence to show staff responded appropriately to people's immediate needs at the time and communicated concerns to the office, management oversight was not always effective in ensuring information was reviewed, acted upon and incorporated into care planning.

Staff responded to people's immediate needs and acted when concerns arose. For example, staff adapted the way they communicated to meet people's individual needs. One person with hearing difficulties was supported by staff who spoke louder to help ensure information was understood and effective communication was maintained.

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

Staff told us they felt valued and supported in their roles. They spoke positively about the support available from the registered manager and office team and said they were able to seek guidance whenever needed. One staff member told us, "Yes they [seniors and manager] are very supportive, it's a good team. We get all the support."

Feedback from staff demonstrated there was a supportive culture within the service, where staff felt able to raise concerns, ask questions and access advice from management. This helped staff feel confident in their roles and supported them to provide effective care to people.

The provider had considered staff wellbeing when planning care delivery. We reviewed staff schedules and found travel time had been built into care rotas between visits. This helped to reduce the risk of staff feeling rushed and supported them to arrive at visits on time. This approach promoted safe working practices and helped ensure staff had sufficient time to travel between people they supported.