Genuine Carers - Kirklees

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People felt safe receiving this service. Some people said staff did not always stay for the full duration of their call, which the registered manager followed up. Medication was mostly well managed and where improvements were needed, the registered manager took action to address this. Some people told us staff spoke in front of them in a language they couldn’t understand, which made them feel excluded from their care. The registered manager said they would discuss this with staff to reiterate the importance of including people. People were not aware they could access their care records in paper format. We received mixed feedback about people’s involvement in their care planning, although others confirmed they were part of ongoing reviews. People were encouraged to give their feedback about the quality of care they received. The provider could demonstrate action was taken in response. People and relatives said they were consistently asked for their consent before care was given. People and relatives said they were supported and cared for by a consistent group of staff who knew their needs and abilities.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were regularly consulted about the quality of care they received. The provider completed these checks with a view to learning from the feedback shared and improving the service.

A positive culture had developed where lessons were learned when things went wrong. Staff understood the importance of this and shared examples with us. We looked at staff meeting minutes which showed how learning was shared amongst the staff team. There was a genuine commitment to continuous learning and improvements.

We saw evidence of a detailed and well documented service improvement plan which reflected on our previous inspection findings and other partner feedback. Satisfaction surveys completed by people and families were responded to individually by the registered manager, showing they listened and acted on any comments and suggestions made. Staff meeting minutes demonstrated an open, transparent culture with learning discussed at team level. Staff surveys were completed and staff were encouraged to share views and ideas using this tool, as well as staff supervisions.

People and relatives told us they were involved in the way their care was assessed and delivered by the provider. Some people had their package of care transferred to Genuine Carers from other services and told us they did not have any concerns about how effectively this happened.

The registered manager and staff team worked with other professionals to support people moving between care settings, such as from hospital to home. They and their staff team communicated regularly with people and relatives to ensure continuity and safety of care.

Partners who we contacted as part of this inspection did not report concerns about the effectiveness of communications between this service and other professionals.

Systems we looked at showed how staff worked with professionals such as GPs and hospital staff to help people move between services. Care plans showed the provider worked with other professionals to help meet people's care needs.

People told us they felt safe receiving this service, although one relative raised concerns about their family member's moving and handling needs having not been managed safely. The registered manager had followed this up in detail and identified some moving and handling refresher training was needed.

Staff showed a mixed understanding of how to report safeguarding concerns externally. The registered manager took action immediately following our inspection to provide further training. Safeguarding reporting responsibilities had been fulfilled by the registered manager who worked with partner organisations to safeguard a person from harm.

Safeguarding reporting responsibilities had been followed. Whilst safeguarding policies and procedures were detailed, we found these would not immediately provide staff with contact details to refer concerns if needed urgently.

People and relatives felt staff involved them where risks needed to be managed. Relatives we spoke with regarding risks around the management of falls were satisfied with the action taken by the provider to reduce these risks.

The registered manager carried out regular updates of people's risk assessments and reviewed these immediately in response to accidents and incidents. Staff were able to explain how they kept informed of risks to people and how to support them to minimise risks.

At the last inspection, daily records of care and support were not always sufficiently detailed or person centred, and some copy and paste entries were noted. At this inspection, we found some information in these records was generic and not fully reflective of people's care needs. Involving people to manage risks was evident in the care planning process. We saw evidence of discussions with people, relatives and how people like their care to be provided. Care plans were updated annually and there was evidence of systematic reviews involving people, with updates done annually or as and when people's needs and preferences changed.

As part of the care planning process, people's living environment was risk assessed to help reduce risk to themselves and others.

Staff said they knew people well and the environments they were working in. They said they supported people to move safely, such as to the bathroom or if any equipment was needed, checks were carried out to ensure there was enough space to move around safely. A staff member told us, “I always think about safety. If I make someone a hot drink, I don’t just leave it, I stay. Medicines are safely out of the way.”

Individual home risk assessments were in place, which identified potential hazards and how staff should mitigate risks to themselves or people and their relatives.

We received mixed feedback about safe and effective staffing. No one reported any missed calls, but 2 people said care staff did not stay for their allocated length of time. People reported continuity of staff providing their care. One person told us they were usually supported by the same worker. They told us, I'm very lucky." When asked if staff had received sufficient training, one person did not feel they were safely supported with their moving and handling needs. This was dealt with by the registered manager as a formal complaint.

At our last inspection, we found staff were swapping care calls without notifying the management team, which led to complications. At this inspection, staff understood they could only do this with permission from the registered manager or care coordinator. No new staff had been recruited since our last inspection. However, recruitment practices had been updated by the registered manager to ensure documentation was robust. Gaps in the recruitment records seen at our last inspection had been addressed Staff said they felt supported through training and supervision. One member of staff said, “I get 100% support from the management. They ensure there’s always enough staff and we have regular training updates.”

At the last inspection there were late calls and insufficient oversight. At this inspection, the period in which a call was classed as late had reduced, meaning office staff were taking action sooner. The registered manager and care coordinator shared daily monitoring of electronic alerts and paid close attention to where people could not raise an alarm if a call was missed. Staff received an induction before they commenced working and formal support was also provided through regular supervision. The staff training matrix showed training was kept up to date.

People and their relatives told us staff consistently wore PPE when they carried out their care calls.

Staff were equipped with PPE such as gloves, aprons, shoe covers, face masks and face shields as well as anti bacterial hand gel. The registered manager and staff showed a sound understanding of the need for good infection control. People were asked for feedback which included their thoughts on whether infection control was well managed.

The staff training matrix showed staff received training in infection control. Spot checks looked at whether staff were wearing the appropriate PPE in people's homes. There was a plentiful supply of PPE in the office for staff to collect.

Most people and relatives told us medicines were administered as prescribed. However, one relative told us a specific medicine was often not administered according to their medication records. They raised a complaint about this.

The registered manager and staff showed a good understanding around processes to follow when administering medicines.

Since our last inspection, the registered manager introduced body maps which showed where creams needed to be applied. The registered manager and care coordinator were carrying out medication audits and spot checks. These were found to be effective.