FiNN Homecare Ltd - 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care, safe care and treatment and governance.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider was failing to support staff and provide effective oversight to enable staff to understand how to deliver person-centre care.

Information about people’s abilities and the support they required was conflicting throughout documentation. Care plans contained some information about people’s life histories, however, did not reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs for staff to understand how to support people appropriately and safely.

Where people required support around their psychological health, care plans did not contain adequate information or guidance on how staff could reassure, support or escalate concerns appropriately.

Person-centred information about people was not robustly documented, there was limited guidance in place which documented how and where people would like to receive their personal care.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities.

Staff and the management team did not always have the skills and experience to understand the care needs of the people who used the service as they had not undertaken the relevant training.

People’s support networks were noted but there was no information about how or why people received support from other people such as family carers. This meant there was a risk of people not receiving continuity of care.

Records demonstrated people received the same staff which provided a continuity of care and meant people and staff built good, supportive relationships where trust was developed. Relatives told us overall they felt the service worked with them when they were required to do so.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs.

The provider’s information relating to people’s care and support was often contradictory and difficult to understand.

The provider failed in ensuring staff had clear information about people's communication needs and were able to be involved in making decisions. Detailed communication care plans were not in place to ensure staff knew how best to communicate with people

We could not be assured staff fully understood people’s communication needs and provided information in a way they could understand.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Not all people who used the service were asked to provide feedback about their care and support. We heard, “I don't think I've been asked for feedback”, and “As far as I know I'm not asked for feedback.”

Whilst feedback forms were sent to some people these were not available in appropriate formats to meet all people’s preferred communication methods or their abilities. This meant not all people were encouraged to provide feedback.

People told us, although they had been asked to fill in a questionnaire, they were unable to complete this due to their physical capabilities. We also heard, “Sometimes I find it difficult to get hold of somebody in the office.”

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals and appointments or receive emergency healthcare as needed. This included GP’s, opticians and other supporting professionals.

Some people were reliant on care staff escalating a deterioration in their health and recognising the need to access health services, on their behalf. Staff had not always escalated concerns to professionals, as there was limited guidance and training in place to ensure staff understood their responsibilities.

We could not be assured people’s care, treatment and support was accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements as staff did not have the right level of training and experience to meet the needs of the people using the service.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff were not supported to fully understand the complex needs people, this meant people were at risk of not receiving the support they needed to live a good life. Staff had not completed their training relating to equality, diversity and inclusion.

The provider had not ensured people were not exposed to unnecessary barriers when making decisions around their support. Information around dementia and people’s capacity was inconsistently recorded which meant we were not assured people’s needs were clearly known.

The provider had not assured themselves legal representation, such as a power of attorney, for people was active and in place.

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.

Changes in people’s needs were not always identified in a timely fashion making it difficult to plan for the future.

The provider had no system in place for people to plan for important life changes and future care, so they had the time and support to make informed decisions to be made about their future.