FiNN Homecare Ltd - Head Office

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care, staffing and consent.

This service scored 55 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People told us staff were kind, respectful and treated them with dignity. We heard, “The staff are lovely, and I've got to know two of them really well”, and “They are certainly very kind and compassionate, and they help me do everything I ask.”

Staff had not received training in relation to dignity and respect and had not always been provided with up-to-date guidance on people’s increased risks and changing needs, in a timely way.

Systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people, including risks associated with medicines management and support planning were not in place. This did not demonstrate the provider adopted a caring and dignified approach. There were no audits and checks which would enable the provider to identify and address the on-going concerns we found during this assessment.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff on people’s needs, wishes and preferences.

The provider had failed to ensure all people's support plans were personalised to reflect their individual care needs and preferences for how their care was delivered. This limited staff’s ability to deliver person-centred care.

People were supported by regular staff who knew them well.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported some people to make day-to-day choices about what food they ate, what clothes they wore and how they wanted to spend their time within their home.

However, there was a lack of information to enable people and staff to communicate effectively to provide people with choice and control. Where people had communicated their wishes around independence, these had not always been taken into account or appropriately assessed.

People and relatives told us, they were offered choice and had control over the decisions being made by care staff. We heard “What is amazing about them is that they give [person] all the time [person] needs.”

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.

Most people we spoke with felt t the service was flexible. People and relatives told us staff knew them well and responded to their needs and wishes, “You give them a last-minute problem, talk to them about it, and they solve it.”

Where health concerns were noted by staff, there was limited evidence staff escalated their concerns, or took appropriate action. Where medical issues with had been identified, staff consulted with each other. This placed people at risk of not receiving responsive appropriate care. For example, one person coughed a lot during the night. They had a cough medicine they used, although this was not prescribed. One member of staff told us they wouldn’t administer this as they didn’t know what it was and would rely on the day staff to administer this medicine. The member of staff had not escalated this concern, meaning the person did not have access to this medicine when they needed it.

The provider had consulted an external agency in April 2025 and were informed people’s care planning was not reflective of people’s needs, and staff were not appropriately trained. The provider had not taken any action to ensure they were responsive to this information to ensure they could respond to people’s needs.
 

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff meetings and meet ups had recently started to take place; however, not all staff members were included in these. Team meetings did not always evidence staff voice, this was a missed opportunity to share information and did not ensure staff felt included and enabled to make suggestions within the service.

Not all staff had received supervisions and appraisals had not been conducted. There was inconsistent monitoring of staffs’ performance in place. Shadowing and formal induction for new staff were not reliably provided, including for those working with individuals with complex needs. The lack of a structured induction process led to gaps in essential knowledge and skills. As a result, this had potential to put people at risk of harm.

Staff were not actively encouraged to give feedback on the service. However, staff told us they felt listened to and valued by the management team and they felt they could raise any concerns they had.