Home Sweet Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found the service was generally well-led. However, the provider had failed to effectivly identy and address shortfalls with staff timekeepinmg and punctuality, leading to late visits and some visits finshing early. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had good communications with people, relatives and staff and worked closely with other health and social care agencies to develop best practice and support people. Staff told us it was a good place to work and spoke positively about the senior leadership team. The provider promoted staff’s rights in regard to equality and diversity.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The managers told us that they met with staff on a monthly basis. They told us that they conducted team meetings on four occasions each month to allow all staff the opportunity to attend. They showed us the agendas and minutes of these meetings, these meetings covered such areas as the systems being implemented by the organisation to support good care practices and a more efficient service. We felt that the approach by the provider ensured that all staff received consistent information on important matters relating to the care they are delivering.

We saw quality meetings held with staff with the aim of sharing information with staff and sharing ideas, new initiatives and discussing best practice. We saw that staff were encourage to put forward their thoughts and ideas as part of these meeting as well as through the organisations supervision and appraisal processes and day to day contact either in people’s homes or in the office.

The staff we spoke with told us that their managers supported the work they do. They told us that managers and all of the people in administrative roles within the organisation were supportive. Administrative staff told us that in the event of short staffing they did their upmost to find a replacement and if this was not possible they provided additional support alongside the care staff staff. Managers showed us work they did in meeting people’s spiritual needs. An assessment of a person’s spiritual needs was undertaken by the provider if deemed appropriate. They told us about how they had been able to connect people to their faiths. They gave an example of a person who, owing to their mobility was not able to attend their place of worship so facilitated contact between the person and their local church. The provider also told us about the work that they did to support bereavement. There was expert knowledge within the management team to be able to signpost people to services following the loss of loved ones.

Staff were able to describe the whistleblowing policy but had said they had never been in a position to feel like they had to use it. They told us how they felt able to approach their colleagues with anything of concern.

People told us they were able to express their views. A person said, “I am involved in my care plan and how to report changes.” Another person told us, “I am involved in my own care plan we discussed my needs and any changes are implemented. I have no complaints, if I did I would ring the office.” A third person said, “The company is very good, I can ring if I feel I need extra help they will put another call in. I have no complaints. The manager is proactive and approachable.” The provider had various systems in place to enable people who used the service and staff to speak up. There was a complaints procedure and we saw complaints were dealt with in line with the procedure. Staff meetings and individual staff supervision meetings were held which gave staff the opportunity to speak up and raise issues of importance to them. Surveys were carried out with people who used the service and their relatives so they could raise any issue they had.

Staff were recruited from a diverse range of people within the local community. The provider how staff with experience and a positive attitude were essential to the aims of the organisation. The staff we spoke with talked about fairness and transparency within the organisation and how they were all treated the same and listened to equally.

The provider promoted workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. For example, staff recruitment was carried out in line with their policy and good practice in relation to equality and diversity. The registered manager told us they sought to meet staff needs around their personal circumstances, such as time of at times of religious festivals. Staff told us that the provider was flexible with their rota to accommodate their childcare needs.

Managers told us about the systems they had that help them check the level of quality of the support the organisation provides. They told us how they collected the views of people using their services, families and their staff and review the information to identify areas where improvements could be made. The provider showed us a range of electronic systems that supported monitoring approaches to such things as staff time keeping, medication administration and the processes of recruiting new staff. The provider told us how they are attuned to what people tell them. They told us that they listened carefully to comments made which can often be people being dissatisfied with the service they receive but do not want to formally complain. The provider told us how they still adopt the approach of talking to the person and recording and investigating in the same way they would had the comments been a formal complaint.

There was a clear management structure in place and staff were aware of who their line manager was. Staff were provided with a copy of their job description which helped to give them clarity about their role. Senior staff carried out spot checks of care staff which were unannounced. These gave the provider the opportunity to monitor staff performance in areas such as record keeping, understanding of their role and interaction with people who used the service. We saw that staff disciplinary matters were carried out in line with the disciplinary procedure. Steps were taken to promote people’s right to confidentiality. There was confidentiality policy in place and we saw staff signed confidentiality agreements. Confidential records were stored securely at the office on password protected electronic devices and in lockable filing cabinets. However, the governance and management systems in place did not always deliver effective care and support. As noted in the safe section of this report, we identified concerns over staff punctuality, with staff being more than 45 minutes late for visits on several occasion. We found many instances of staff being late for visits or not staying for the full amount of time allocated. Often staff left after less than half the planned visit time. We found similar concerns at our last inspection in July 2022. Although the provider had taken steps to improve in this area, there had yet to be sufficient improvement. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People told us the service worked with them to assess and deliver their care needs.

During our visit the provider told us about the range or other professionals they work with in order to deliver good care. They told us about how they responded to people who they believed were developing pressure sores and how their processes involve alerting the person’s GP or district nurse to obtain specialist knowledge and support. The provider told us about their partnership work with local groups and other providers to share ideas including information on good practice and to offer support to one another.

We spoke with the local authority about this service who told us they considered them to be a good care provider. We saw that the provider had good working relations with other agencies, including health and social care professionals. The provider was open and honest with other agencies, for example, in the reporting to the local authority any allegations of abuse. The provider also accessed training through the local authority and NHS, such as Significant 7+, the aim of which is the prevention of avoidable A&E attendances and acute admissions for complex and frail patients. The registered manager told us they attended a care association facilitated by the local authority, which was a forum for all care providers within the area to meet and discuss matters of mutual importance and share good practice.

We saw evidence that the provider worked alongside other agencies to meet people’s needs. There was evidence of immediate responding to the request from the local authority for the organisation to provide support when a person’s needs changed. Likewise we saw evidence of assessments and discharges being carried out swiftly to in order to get people back to their homes, preventing unnecessarily long hospital admissions.

The provider told us how, through listening to people they aimed to continually improve the quality of support provided. They were able to explain their processes for communicating to their team in a range of different methods which ensured key messages were received consistently across their entire staff team. They told us about their reading list of policies and other guidance sent out to staff via different methods to ensure up to date knowledge. The provider understood areas they needed to improve upon. This included medication administration charts which had been altered and they were bringing in a new system to help eradicate this problem. At the time of our visit the provider was embarking upon using a number of new electronic systems in a desire to further enhance the quality of care they provide to people.

There were systems in place for learning, improvement and innovation. For example, accidents and incidents were reviewed to see what learning opportunities there were and staff received regular training to help improve their performance.