Archived: Hales Group Limited - Peterborough

Updated 29 July 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th July 2017 and was announced. This was so that staff would be available during the inspection. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience or experience of caring for someone who uses this type of service. Their area of expertise was in relation to adult social care; domiciliary care agency – telephone trained; family carer of person with dementia; older people / family carers of older people, and end of life care.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at this and other information we hold about the service. This included information from notifications received by us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Before the inspection we asked for information from representatives of the local authority contracts monitoring team, the local authority safeguarding team, and Health watch to aid us with planning this inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, and 10 relatives of people using the service. We also spoke with, the registered manager and the quality and compliance manager. Their role was to monitor and analyse the quality of the service delivered at each of the provider’s locations. They were also involved in the setting up and monitoring of the provider’s policies, procedures and quality systems. We also spoke with the trainer; a field co-ordinator and four support staff.

We looked at five people’s care records and records in relation to the management of the service; quality monitoring records; management of staff; management of people’s medicines; compliments and complaints, staff training certificates, and four staff files. We also received additional evidence including, survey results, an action plan and a copy of the last report template poster from the provider on the 6th July 2017.

Updated 29 July 2017

Hales Group Limited – Peterborough is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes in Peterborough and surrounding areas. At the time of our inspection there were 85 people being supported with the regulated activity of personal care.

This inspection was carried out on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th July 2017 and was an announced inspection. At the last inspection on 4th and 5th August 2016, the service was rated as ‘requires improvement.’ We found that the service had made improvements since the last inspection; and was now rated good.

People were looked after by enough, suitably qualified staff to support them with their individual needs. However, some people experienced late care calls or an inconsistent group of staff to support them.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. The registered manager had an understanding that people being supported by the service who lacked mental capacity to make day-to-day decisions should have an application to the Court of Protection made on their behalf. Staff were able to demonstrate a basic understanding of the MCA. Any decisions made on people’s behalf by staff were done in their best interest and as least restrictive as possible.

Staff demonstrated their knowledge of how to report incidents of poor care and harm. Staff helped people in a way that maintained their safety and people were looked after by staff in a caring manner. Staff supported and encouraged people to make their own choices and live as independently as possible. People were treated with respect and people’s dignity were promoted by staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff enjoyed their work and understood their roles and responsibilities in meeting people’s needs They were trained to provide effective and safe care. Staff were supported to maintain their skills by way of supervision, spot checks, competency checks, and appraisals.

The provider had a process in place to make sure that staff were only employed to look after people once all pre-employment checks had been completed and were found to be satisfactory. However, this process was not always followed.

People’s care arrangements took account of people’s wishes and aspirations, including any likes and dislikes and how they wanted to be supported. People’s care plans recorded their individual assessed needs and any assistance they required from staff. Risks to people were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to monitor and minimise these risks, as far as possible, without limiting people’s independence.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed by staff who were trained, and whose competency had been assessed. Where there had been any errors in the administration of people’s medicines, these had been identified and dealt with to reduce the risk of recurrence.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and fluids. People’s choice about what they wished to eat and drink was promoted and supported. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being needs. They acted upon issues identified by referring people to access a range of external health care services.

There was a process in place to manage any concerns and complaints received. The registered manager had identified areas for improvement with this process and had implemented improvements so that people and their relatives felt listened to and their concerns resolved to their satisfaction.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. People and staff were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided. Actions were taken as a result to drive forward any improvements required.