Heartfelt Care

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

People told us they were involved in planning their care. People talked to us about how they felt the staff knew them very well. Care plans had been improved and contained personalised information which meant staff had sufficient guidance to ensure people's needs and preferences were met. Staff received training in equality, diversity and human rights and the provider had the necessary policies in place. The registered manager, said “We lead by example here." People said they were treated fairly with their human rights being respected. People using the service, relatives and staff were given the opportunity to provide feedback. People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern and were confident action would be taken by the management team.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans had been improved and contained personalised information which meant staff had sufficient guidance to ensure people's needs and preferences were met. People and relatives told us that they were satisfied they receive person centred care.

At the last inspection, we found the provider in breach of Regulation 9 (Person-centred care) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the provider had failed to carry out thorough assessments of people's care needs. Care plans did not provide care workers with all the necessary information relating to people who used the service. At this assessment we found that considerable improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 9. The provider had a new electronic care system. We were told by the management team this enabled them to monitor people’s care provision and changing needs on a daily basis. One of the team said, “Going digital has made life so much better, we can see everything.”

People told us they could share their views about the service they received through care reviews and surveys. People told us they would be confident to raise anything they were not happy with and knew it would be addressed. People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern and were confident action would be taken by the management team. Comments included, “I am aware, if I have a problem I can phone and ask for one of them… but I haven’t had to do that yet” and “Yes…of course I would be straight on the blower and straight to the point.”

Training had been undertaken to further promote and value diversity. This included Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Level 1. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans.

We received positive feedback from the local authority quality assurance officer about how the management team had worked with them to improve all areas of the service.

The management team analysed all feedback people and relatives provided in their questionnaire responses. They looked at all comments and recorded the actions taken. For example, one person said they wanted to speak with the registered manager, which took place.

People and their relatives could provide feedback about their experiences of care and the service provided a range of accessible ways to do this such as emails and phone calls with the management team.

People’s care plans were personalised and recorded details about each person's specific needs and how they liked to be supported.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. Care plans contained information about people’s communication needs.

People felt listened to and involved in decisions that affected them.

The management team, described how they involved people in developing the service and ensured they felt their views were heard. People's feedback was regularly sought through surveys and conversations with the staff team on a daily basis and at reviews.

We saw the provider had received 3 complaints in 2023 and 2024. Each complaint had been investigated and responded to and resolved in a timely manner. For example, one complaint was regarding, a change in a visit time and staff using mobile phones. One of the management team had spoken with the complainant and explained staff used their mobile phones to update care records. In all 3 complaints there was evidence of action taken to resolve the issues and reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Lessons learned were discussed at team meetings.

People and relatives told us they received their care when it was needed and had no concerns. People told us they were contacted if there was going to be a delay on a visit or anything needed to change. They told us that there were sometimes delays but staff explained to them this was due to traffic.

Staff completed daily entries on people’s care records which showed the care people had received and captured any changes in people's health and well-being. This ensured all staff members were aware of any changes to people’s health conditions.

Feedback from the local authority quality monitoring officer did not raise any concerns for this quality statement.

Most of the management team had completed training to be able to support care in the community so they were able to provide cover.

People were supported by a small staff team who knew them well and ensured their care was personalised to their individual needs. This enabled people to be able to communicate their wishes and preferences.

The management team made sure care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated. These provided staff with the information they needed to meet people’s needs and preferences. Staff told us this helped them get to know people’s preferences and needs. Staff were provided with training on equality, diversity and inclusion to raise awareness of people’s rights and potential discrimination. The management team and staff were dedicated and passionate about supporting people to achieve their outcomes. They were proud about the support staff gave to people and spoke enthusiastically about what people had been supported to achieve by the service. For example, a staff member had identified that people could not access fish and chips locally. They had set up a Friday night fish and chips run so people could enjoy them again. The provider had brought a person a budgie because they missed their dog. Having the budgie with its routine had helped the person know if it was daytime or nighttime. The management team shared these successes with staff.

The management and staff reviewed people’s care plans and risk assessments every 6 months and met/or spoke with people and their relatives to make sure the care they received met their needs. People’s care documentation contained information in relation to people’s histories, likes and dislikes, as well as information about what is important to the person. The service had an Equality and Diversity policy in place.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved in planning their ongoing care. One relative told us, “When we initially took the contract…they explained everything to us and gave us terms and conditions…there’s a chart here where each visit they circle what they’ve done and write notes on their smart phone.” A person receiving support told us, “I would say it’s ongoing, they are on top of it. They keep asking me if everything’s alright, anything they can do- very attentive to my needs.”

The management team and staff told us people and relatives were involved in the development of care plans and reviews.

People and relatives were involved in the development of care plans and reviews. Care plans were personalised to the individual and recorded details about each person's specific needs and how they liked to be supported. At the time of the last inspection the provider was not providing anyone with end-of-life care. We found that people’s care plans did not consider people's end of life wishes. At this assessment, we found that the service was still not routinely providing end of life care, however people’s care documentation now contained, where people wanted to discuss this, information related to end of life wishes. Staff were receiving training related to end-of-life support.