We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hartley Home Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Hartley Home Care, you can give feedback on this service.
Hartley Home Care is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in the community. When we inspected the service was providing the regulated activity, personal care, to approximately 170 people in the Camelford, Bodmin, Bude, Launceston, Liskeard and surrounding areas in Cornwall.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
At our last inspection people were at risk of harm because visit times were inconsistent and sometimes missed. Systems to record people’s agreed times were not robust and rotas were not effectively managed. People did not always receive the care and support they needed at the agreed times or have consistent staff teams.
At this inspection people told us they received their visits at the agreed times. No one reported having had a missed visit. People told us issues that had concerned them at the last inspection, such as inconsistent visits, had been resolved and the service had improved. People told us they were happy with the service they received and had regular staff who arrived on time. Comments included, "I know what time they are coming", "Very happy with the service", “The rota seems to work for me and my relative, they asked us what times we needed and worked it out with us” and “They turn up okay and stay for the right time. They let me know if they're going to be late.”
The service had introduced new electronic rostering, call monitoring and care planning systems and this together with the more clearly defined management and office staff structure had improved the reliability and running of the service.
Staff told us rotas had improved, were available on their phones, and any changes were communicated to them in a timely manner. Some staff commented that travel time was not always included in their rotas. The manager said rotas were being reviewed to plan the appropriate amount of travel time between each visit, as it varied between areas.
Care plans were in place for everyone using the service. The service used an electronic care planning system and staff accessed this on their mobile phones. The information generated by this system was accurate, timely and gave staff enough detail to provide the right care and support for people.
Staff were recruited safely. The service had continued to recruit throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure there were enough staff to cover for sickness or for staff who needed to shield or self-isolate. Where the service had started to work in a new geographical area enough staff, local to that area, had been recruited.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Systems were in place to ensure the effective management of medicines. Staff who were administering medication had been trained and had their competencies checked to ensure correct procedures were followed.
Staff were aware of the government guidance on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, gloves and aprons.
People, their relatives and staff told us management were approachable and they listened to them when they had any concerns or ideas. All feedback was used to make continuous improvements to the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement. (Report published on 10 May 2019) and there were two breaches of the regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
The inspection was carried out to follow up on the action we told the provider to take at the last inspection. As a result, we carried out this focused inspection to review the key questions of Safe, Effective and Well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Hartley Home Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
Hartley Home Care is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in the community. When we inspected the service was providing the regulated activity, personal care, to approximately 127 people in the Camelford, Bodmin, Bude and surrounding areas in Cornwall.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ People were at risk of harm because they did not always receive the care and support they needed at the agreed times. Most people did not know when staff would be coming and the times of their visits were inconsistent. People were not always told about changes to their times or if staff were running late. There had been some missed visits.
¿ Rotas were not effectively managed. Systems to record people’s agreed times were not robust, which meant rotas were completed without the correct information about the times some people needed. While the provider had identified the issues about rota management they had failed to take sufficient action to improve the situation.
¿ People told us they did not always have consistent staff. However, they were happy with all the staff who provided care for them. People said staff always stayed for the full time of the visit and were competent in their roles.
¿ Staff were recruited safely. Recent vacancies had been recruited to and eight staff were waiting to work unsupervised because employment checking were still outstanding. In the meantime, management and other staff were covering for these vacancies. Staff received regular supervision, training and support from management.
¿ Assessments were carried out to identify any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them.
¿ People were supported to access healthcare services, staff recognised changes in people's health, and sought professional advice appropriately.
¿ There was a new management structure in the process of being developed and some management roles were still being defined. People knew how to raise any concerns and the service regularly sought people’s views.
Rating at last inspection: Overall Good (Safe rated Requires Improvement). The report was published on 3 November 2017.
Why we inspected: The planned inspection was brought forward due information of risk or concern received by CQC. These concerns were about the service being unreliable, poorly managed rotas, staff working unsupervised without the relevant employment checks and training and insufficient staffing levels.
We issued breaches of the regulations. Please see the end of the report for details of the action we have told the provider to take.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
The full details can be found on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Provide a brief overview of the service (e.g. Type of care provided, size, facilities, number of people using it, whether there is or should be a registered manager etc).
N.B. If there is or should be a registered manager include this statement to describe what a registered manager is:
‘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.’
Give a summary of your findings for the service, highlighting what the service does well and drawing attention to areas where improvements could be made. Where a breach of regulation has been identified, summarise, in plain English, how the provider was not meeting the requirements of the law and state ‘You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.’ Please note that the summary section will be used to populate the CQC website. Providers will be asked to share this section with the people who use their service and the staff that work at there.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 told us they felt safe using the service. People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse or mistreatment. Staff were aware of how to prevent the spread of cross infection through following robust infection control practices. Where people required support with their medicines, staff who supported them had received training in medicines management. The services followed robust recruitment practices, ensuring that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people and that checks such as DBS (disclosure barring service) had been made ahead of them commencing their employment.
People were supported by staff who received regular training in order to carry out their role effectively. There was a system in place to remind them when it was due to be renewed or refreshed. Staff who were new to the service underwent a thorough induction period, which included shadowing more experienced staff. Staff were supported by a programme of regular supervision, competency checks and an annual appraisal.
People and their relatives told us staff were caring, kind and compassionate. People said staff used appropriate humour and could share a laugh and joke with them, brightening their day. One person said; “They are caring people and we get along well”. Staff were happy in their role and committed to providing a good quality service. Staff spoke about the people they supported with warmth and affection. The service was not fully staffed at the time of the inspection, however there was a recruitment campaign targeted at the areas where the service was short staffed. The registered manager had not taken on any new packages of care for three weeks to ensure this did not affect the care delivered to people.
People had detailed care plans in place which provided staff with the correct level of guidance to meet their needs. Care plans were well organised, easy to navigate and regularly reviewed and updated. People were involved in writing their care plans and a copy was kept in their home. Not all of the care plans we reviewed had a consistent amount of personalised information in them. This was highlighted to the registered manager who felt that people varied in their willingness to provide such information.
The registered manager sought feedback on the running of the services and took on board any comments and suggestions received. The service employed a quality assurance officer. Their role was to visit people in their home to complete a feedback questionnaire and also to check that all the necessary documents were in place. The registered manager undertook a range of regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and was committed to driving continuous improvement. There was a complaints policy in place. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt confident it would be resolved to their satisfaction. One person said; “They do deal with complaints. They want you to contact them if you have a problem”.
People told us staff stayed for the allotted time and there were few missed visits. Some people told us they felt timings were not always adhered to, meaning their visit was either too early or late. However, people we spoke with told us staff would let them know if they were not going to visit on time and this was generally not a concern for people. We noticed that staff in one geographical area were consistently failing to use the call monitoring system in the evenings. We highlighted this to the registered manager who was already aware and looking into the problem.