Hales Group Limited - Leeds

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff told us they understood how to support people in a person-centred manner. When asked what person-centred care meant to them one staff member said, “what they want and how they want it done, everyone gets washed, but everyone has it a different way and you do it best for that individual.” Another staff member told us, “It means it’s about them not us and putting them at the centre of their care and make their choices and support their decisions, they have control of their own care.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff told us they mostly supported the same people whom they knew well and could identify changes to their needs and respond quickly. This supported continuity in people’s care and treatment.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service provided information and advice that was accurate and up to date.

People were provided with information in formats they could understand. Hales group had the infrastructure in place to ensure people had information in languages and formats that met people’s needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives understood how to provide feedback, share ideas, or raise concerns about their care, support, and treatment when needed. Although we received limited feedback directly from people, we saw evidence that the service had actively sought feedback through a range of mechanisms and took appropriate action when areas for improvement were identified. This demonstrated a commitment to listening to people and using feedback to drive improvements in the quality of care and support provided.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were asked for feedback regularly. The service issued surveys to ensure they felt involved and that their views were sought, listened to and used to inform service improvements.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had an up-to-date equality, diversity and human rights policy and staff had undertaken equality and diversity training.

The registered manager and care staff understood their responsibilities in ensuring people’s treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers, or delays and protected people’s rights. There was a whistleblowing policy in place encouraging people and staff to speak up.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of the assessment, the provider was supporting one person who was receiving end of life care. While daily notes and other records evidenced that the person was being cared for appropriately, the care plan did not fully reflect their end-of-life status or clearly document their wishes and preferences. This meant that, in the event of changes to regular staffing arrangements, staff may not have had access to sufficient information to ensure care was delivered in line with the person's wishes. The provider had identified and addressed this within the new care planning system, where end of life needs and preferences had been appropriately considered and documented in a way that reflected the individual's circumstances.