Fen Homecare

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

We identified 2 ongoing breaches of the legal regulations. Care was not always person centred and there was not an effective system for dealing with concerns and complaints. Feedback on care was mixed. Some people felt staff did not understand their requests, though staff reported knowing individuals well. Care plans lacked essential details but were being improved by a consultant. Care call timings were inconsistent. Health and support information was not always comprehensive or up to date. Staff had not received end-of-life training, risking inadequate care for those at the final stage of life.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback about the care people received was mixed. People’s care was not always person-centred. People told us staff did not always understand what they were asking for. The records showed that this had been raised with the registered manager on more than occasion. Comments from people and their relatives included, “I think they’re [carers] very good. They don’t hang about and they do the job well.” Another relative told us, “I feel staff know [family member] well. Even though there aren’t consistent carers, it’s rare they get totally new ones. They do shadow.” One person told us, “They try to do a good job in the time they’ve got.” A relative told us, “One issue is carers talking to each other in their own language. [Family member] feels like they’re talking about them."

Staff told us they had worked with people for a long time so knew them well and how they liked to be supported. Staff told us they had time to read care plans. However, some care plans lacked essential information or were not written in a person-centred manner. The consultant employed part way through the assessment was making improvements to the care plans. The provider shared examples of positive health outcomes, such as an individual’s grade 4 pressure sore healing due to their support. However, the individual’s care plan had not been updated and still incorrectly indicated that they had a pressure sore.

People’s feedback was mixed about the provision of their care. People and their relatives told us that the timing of their care calls could vary by up to 3 hours. One relative told us they had raised concerns about their family members call times and they had improved. People told us that when needed the carers or office staff had arranged for healthcare professionals to visit or emergency support. Several people felt carers should complete more training.

The provider and registered manager acknowledged that care plans did not always contain detailed and current information about people’s needs and what time they would prefer their care calls to take place. Although contact with health professionals was recorded it was not possible to see if this had always been followed up when needed to ensure continuity of care.

The local authority stated that although improvements had initially been made after the previous inspection and their input, they had received concerns recently about the support people received.

Not all information about people's health and support needs was comprehensive or up to date. While support was requested from healthcare professionals, follow-ups were not always conducted or properly recorded.

Information was provided in a format that people could understand. An audio version of 1 person’s care plan was provided when requested. People told us they had regular visits and calls from office staff to inform them of any changes.

Staff were aware of the Accessible Information Standards (AIS) and were mindful of people’s communication needs. The registered manager told us information could be produced in a range of formats where required.

People’s records and information about them were stored and handled in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

Relatives were happy to contact the registered manager if they had any concerns.

The registered manager acknowledged that although there was a process where people were asked their views on the care and support provided these were not always responded to appropriately or in a timely manner. Care staff told us that required improvements were shared during staff meetings.

There was a lack of a transparent and effective complaints-handling process, including clear mechanisms for logging, tracking, and analysing complaints and concerns. While some concerns had been documented in various places, they were not consistently transferred to the complaints log. Additionally, there was no recorded information on how these concerns were addressed, and no analysis was conducted to identify recurring issues or trends.

People told us they were supported to access the support they required.

There was an on-call number that people and staff could call out of office hours if they needed support.

We did not receive any feedback from external health and social care professionals regarding equity in access.

The provider had systems in place to assess people needs before they offered them a service.

We spoke to people about their experience of care. They did not report any barriers to care related to discrimination.

The provider stated that 1 of their objectives was to recognise the individuality and diversity of each person who used the service and that they would offer choices and enable people to make decision about how their care is provided.

All staff were scheduled to attend an equality and diversity training session to ensure their knowledge remained current.

Where completed, care plans reflected if people had advanced decisions about their care, a DNACPR or RESPECT form in place however it did not always state where they were kept. The care plan for 1 person contained conflicting information about their end of life wishes.

The consultant identified that staff had not attended end-of-life training and that future care plans were not always in place for individuals identified as being at the end of life. This posed a risk of people not receiving the care they wanted during the final stages of their life.

Processes had not always been followed to ensure that information was easily available and consistent throughout the care plans.