Hazelcare Head Office

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.

This is the first assessment for this service type of supported living. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 64 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always being regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected their current support needs and any change in their needs were accurately recorded. For example, the specific support people required with their health needs or changes in their mobility was not always clearly explained in their care plans. The provider did not always hold reviews of care with people and their relatives where appropriate. This meant we were not assured people were always as involved as they could be in their care and treatment choices.

People’s care plans contained specific personal information such as their routines and interests.
Staff encouraged and enabled people to participate in activities that were meaningful to them while maintaining choice and control over how they spent their time. Where people received some 1 to 1 support with different activities this was provided flexibly to meet their needs. People told us they felt listened to and their choices were respected.
Staff told us they understood people’s needs, preferences and routines, and provided examples of actions they completed to support each person in a personalised way. One staff member told us, “I learn about their routines, preferences, cultural background, hobbies, communication style and what is important to them. Building trusting relationships allows me to provide care that is truly person-centred.”
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.
People regularly accessed GP and other community health services. Where people chose to decline to attend health appointments records showed staff had at times, liaised with health professionals to discuss potential solutions. However, health and social care professionals raised concerns about some people not regularly attending required health appointments, and there being a lack of effective communication from some services.
Their comments included, “Communication continues to be a problem and has been the case for many months resulting in us struggling to get hold of clients and their carers in a timely manner” and “Requests for information can take a long time to be answered, which can delay decision-making and coordinated support.” There had also been delays in staff seeking support from health professionals after concerns had been identified, for example when people’s mobility had decreased.

People received care and support from a consistent team of staff who knew them well. Staff were allocated to work in one or two supported living services which provided continuity of care for people. The provider worked alongside people’s relatives when it was appropriate.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People’s communication care plans recorded how they communicated and how staff should communicate with them, they included information about people's sensory needs. One person had a visual timetable to assist them to understand their routine.
The provider gave people a welcome pack which included information about their rights, how to make a complaint and house rules. This Information was also displayed in services. One person told us, “I have a binder with all the rules, I stick by them.”
People were provided with tenancy agreements which provided information to people about their rights and responsibilities.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.
The service had a complaints policy they followed when any complaint was received.
House meetings took place in some services. One person told us, “We have a meeting once a month, they ask if anyone has any issues. They say you can come and see me afterwards.”
Relatives told us they were confident to raise any concerns they had, and managers would respond and they were satisfied with the outcome. One relative shared an example of a concern they had raised and how it had been addressed. They said, “At one point there were lots of issues around behaviours. I said I didn’t know about them, they did start a daily log and now we have a WhatsApp chat.”
Staff and people surveys were completed to seek feedback. Responses had been analysed and actions created to drive improvements.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
Care plans recorded the support people needed to arrange and attend medical appointments. The provider had arranged for people who may struggle to attend health appointments to be visited at home. A relative told us, “They arranged for the GP to come to their home, so they didn’t have to go to the surgery”. This demonstrated that adjustments were made to ensure people had equity in access to health professionals.
Staff had access to an ‘on-call manager’, available 24 hours a day. This provided extra support for staff, particularly if there was an emergency or if they needed advice or guidance. A staff member told us, “Managers are contactable by phone during shifts and for emergencies, after hours I call on call. They listen, give clear instructions, and follow up”.
Where people’s care packages included 1 to 1 support this was allocated to people. However, we found it was not always clear from people’s care notes if the support was being consistently provided. The provider had introduced forms which recorded when 1 to 1 support was provided and was working on ensuring this was clearly recorded in people’s care notes.
Areas within some services was not fully accessible to people with mobility needs. For example, 1 person was currently unable to use their shower. The provider told us the person had been offered alternative accommodation which would be more suitable for their mobility needs but they had declined. During our assessment the provider informed us they had arranged for this person to have a wet room. They showed us records which confirmed a referral to an occupational therapist had now been made to assess any additional support or equipment they may need.
 

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.
People had equality, diversity and inclusion care plans which included individualised information about them and their protected characteristics.
Where people’s social vulnerability meant they may experience barriers in the community their care plans recorded actions staff should take to ensure their safety in social situations.
Where people had requested to move to other services operated by the provider they had been supported to move.
People achieved outcomes comparable to others, including maintained independence and access to social opportunities.
Policies and procedures were aligned with current equality legislation, ensuring both people and staff were treated fairly, consistently, and with dignity. Staff had undertaken equality and diversity training. Staff, people, external professionals and relatives did not identify any concerns about discrimination.
 

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.
While people were not in receipt of end-of-life care at the time of the assessment care plans did not always include information on their longer-term wishes and preferences which could be important to them. However, the provider told us people had not wanted to discuss their views in this area.
People told us they were as independent as they could be. Staff supported people to maintain and develop their independence where this was important to people. One staff member told us, “I want to see people improve and live independently, it is fulfilling, some are now able to cook, clean teeth, change clothes.”