Hartley Locums

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Relatives said staff’s approach was to focus on their family member’s needs. One relative said because of this, “We have not been disappointed, and they (Hartley House) are brilliant to use.” Staff knew the importance of working together and their role in providing good care. Staff told us the registered manager and senior staff took practical action to embed the service’s values. This included practical help to improve people’s care by providing advice when required. One staff member told us about the culture of the service and said, “Colleagues are cooperative. This is a fulfilling role because it is about helping people to continue to do the things they could not do on their own. It’s a blessing to help them.” The registered manager told us what they wanted for people and staff. They said, “I want staff to get on well and improve their knowledge. I want them to put the [person] and their comfort first.” The registered manager sought feedback from staff on any barriers to delivering the service, including within staff meetings and supervision sessions, so these could be addressed.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Relatives told us they were confident in the senior staff’s abilities and approach to providing care. One relative said, “I think it is run very well.” Another relative told us, “It is perfect, I have no worries and no complaints. I have been really happy with the care.” Staff were positive about the skills of senior staff and their understanding of people’s needs and the challenges staff faced. Staff said they could quickly obtain advice from senior staff, when this was required. Staff said senior staff were visible and approachable. One staff member told us because of this approach, “I am quite happy and it is the best company I have worked for and feel involved and part of the team.”

Staff described communication with senior staff as good and said they had not needed to raise any whistle-blowing concerns because their views were sought and listened to. One staff member said, “I feel supported and encouraged by managers and supervisors to say anything. We are open with them and they are so supportive.” Systems were in place to advise staff of the protections available to whistleblowers and the provider’s whistleblowing policy was made available to guide staff, should they wish to raise any whistleblowing concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff told us they were treated well. One staff member said, “You can get time off for family events and [senior staff] are flexible and cooperative with us. You get a work life balance and are treated fairly.” Senior staff gave us examples of additional, practical support they had provided to enable staff to care for people. This included providing drivers for some staff, and rotating staff on some calls, so staff members continued to enjoy the best health possible.

The provider had clear responsibilities and roles. Some governance systems needed to be developed further, but others were more embedded and were used to manage and deliver good quality support. The provider acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. However, the provider’s checks and audits had not identified further development of systems to ensure people’s mental capacity was consistently assessed and decisions in people’s best interests were always recorded. In addition, care planning arrangements needed to be expanded more, to provide comprehensive guidance for staff, so people’s preferences would be further embedded. The registered manager started to address these areas during our assessment. Some governance arrangements had consistently worked well and helped to shape development of the service. These included spot checks on staff practice, processes to foster of a culture where people, relatives and staff felt empowered to make suggestions about the care provided, and surveys on the quality of care provided. These helped staff to understand their roles and responsibilities, including the expectation staff would promptly escalate any concerns about people’s safety or changing needs. This helped senior staff to understand people’s risks and adapt their care accordingly. Relatives told us they felt the service was managed well, and senior staff also provided care to their family members. This helped senior staff to understand how to develop the people’s care and the service further. Relatives said because of the quality of care provided they would recommend the service to others.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. People and relatives were positive about the partnership approach taken by staff and how Hartley House staff worked together and with other agencies and the positive impact this had on the care provided. People were asked for their opinions on the service provided through annual quality assurance surveys. We saw the results of these had been positive. One relative said, “[Staff] come out about 4 times a year and check [person’s name] is happy with the service. We get surveys, I have only got positive things to say about them.” Another relative told us about the way Hartley House staff worked across their own teams. The relative said, “The teams communicate pretty well with each other. Staff would say 'I've seen on mum’s notes…' There was continuity of care, although there may have been different carers.” A health and social care professional who regularly worked with staff told us, “I have had [people] where I have completed joint reviews with Hartley [House] and they have attended on time and been very supportive. The staff are very caring and go over and above. Communication is excellent. Staff are very responsive to calls and emails and kept me fully updated. I find them very caring and professional.” This approach helped to ensure people received the care they wanted. The health and social care professional also gave us examples showing how Hartley House staff took into account and respected the needs of people’s relatives when providing care. Staff were encouraged to provide feedback on people’s care needs and gave us examples where staff worked closely with health and social care professionals from other organisations, so people would receive the care they wanted. The registered manager gave us examples showing how they had used their knowledge of local networks and organisations, to benefit people receiving services. This included in relation to obtaining the equipment people wanted and specialist advice, so people would remain as safe and independent as possible.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. Relatives told us if they gave any feedback on the care provided staff took action to change how they cared for their family members. Staff told us they were encouraged to discuss any learning about people’s care. One staff member said, “We talk about what is going on with the [people], any issues they have and how we can resolve these. We give suggestions that may help everyone in the team to resolve them. This builds camaraderie in the team.” Another staff member explained they were given opportunities to take learning on their practice through spot checks conducted by senior staff. The staff member said, “They do tell staff on WhatsApp of any changes we need to make as a result of our spot checks, such as how we use PPE. [Senior staff] do it in a confidential way, so individual staff members are not named.” Senior staff considered any patterns and trends where incidents, concerns or complaints had been received and used this information to adjust how they cared for people.