- Homecare service
HF Trust Cheshire
Report from 20 June 2024 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
HF Trust - Cheshire DCA is a domiciliary care service who provide care and support to people living with a learning disability in their own homes. Some properties were owned by HFT. We carried out this assessment in response to concerns we had received about quality of care in the service. At the time of our assessment 58 people were using the service. We completed the assessment between 30 August and 17 October 2024 when feedback was given. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) is the guidance the Care Quality Commission (CQC) follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. This guidance was reviewed as part of this assessment, and we found the provider had failed to meet some of its principles. Peoples' human rights were not always upheld through consent and assessing capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were not made for some people. Staffing shortages meant people did not always receive their funded 1:1 hours, with people missing out on activities and visits with families. Care plans did not always reflect the care and support required and risks were not always well managed through risk assessments. Incidents were unreported at times and not managed through the safeguarding process as required. Lack of oversight of the management team had contributed to this as well as frequent changes in management and organisational restructure. There were 3 breaches identified in safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, and governance.
People's experience of this service
The feedback we received from people and relatives was mixed. People shared positive experiences and good outcomes for their family members. However, there was an overwhelming amount of feedback regarding areas of improvements required and observations including shared examples by family members. Staff were praised by family members but were left frustrated with the lack of leadership, low staffing numbers, leadership accountability and poor communication. Family members told us that people were not always supported with their allocated 1:1 hours and did not always get to undertake planned activities of their choice.