Genuine Carers - Kirklees

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

Improvements were evident since the last inspection and the service was working to sustain these. Action had been taken in response to the last inspection and address the points raised in the warning notice. There were clear examples of how to identify lessons learned as situations arose. Quality checks were carried out, although some of these were not always timely or accurate. These were identified and actions raised as a result of provider oversight visits. The registered manager told us this was an area in progress and they were trying to establish a more systematic approach to checking the quality of the service. The service improvement plan was used as a working tool to measure progress and continuous improvements. This was detailed, although needed to be updated to show when actions had been taken. Staff felt supported and enjoyed working at the service. Good communication was evident between the management team and staff, with staff meetings sharing best practice in open transparent ways. There were clearly defined systems of accountability which all staff understood. The provider valued diversity in the workforce and there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement. The service fostered an openness where people felt that they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. The provider understood their roles and responsibilities in working in partnership, to ensure effective outcomes for people. Most people and relatives said communication with management was effective, although one relative said they thought this could be improved.

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.

Staff told us they worked to ensure people received the best care. One member of staff said, “We are all working for the same reasons. We want people to have the best care that suits them.” Staff told us there was a positive, open culture in the service, where they trusted one another and worked well as part of a team. Positive results were evident in the staff surveys and the tone of meeting minutes showed staff were encouraged to speak up. The registered manager was very enthusiastic and eager to provide a professional service.

The tone and content of staff meetings showed staff were valued and appreciated. Supervision for staff were supportive and informative; the format had been changed to provide more detailed support. Unannounced spot checks were completed regularly. These looked at staff practice, including the care records entered by staff. Actions were listed where needed as well as praise for good work. Satisfaction surveys completed by staff showed very positive feedback.

The registered manager was particularly committed to their role. They showed a compassionate approach to providing care and a knowledge of each person receiving a service. They told us they had the right balance of being able to run the service themselves, but also having support available from different sources, when needed. The registered manager was keen to develop their own learning and had completed a ‘train the trainer’ in moving and handling. Staff feedback included, “The service is running much better now than it ever was and I’ve worked here a long time” and “Spot checks happen and that’s a good thing. I know I’m doing my job right.”

The registered manager had a twice weekly check-in with the operations manager, which was a supportive discussion. Staff meeting minutes and other forums for sharing feedback with staff showed acknowledgement and praise for staff achievements.

The registered manager had taken action to ensure the views of staff were captured. Staff said staff morale was high and all work well as a team. There was a low turnover of staff, partly because staff felt more able to speak out as they trusted colleagues and the management team. The registered manager said there had not been any major concerns reported to them. Minor issues were dealt with quickly after they were raised.

People, relatives and staff were empowered to speak up and give their feedback. Policies and procedures were in place which supported this. We saw evidence which showed complaints were listened to with each point of concern addressed and responded to. Responses showed what action had been taken and checked the complainant was satisfied with the outcome. Responses were appropriate and sent out in a timely manner.

Staff said they felt inclusion was a priority for the service and they were treated with respect for their differences. This was seen as a positive factor in the make-up of the team. One staff member told us, “The managers know if I need to be flexible to manage my home and work balance, and they allow me to make adjustments.” Another member of staff said, “I feel I have respect for who I am and what I do.” The provider was proud to support staff with their religious beliefs and enabled them to enjoy time off for festive celebrations.

The provider had policies and procedures for equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff meeting minutes showed staff were encouraged to share their thoughts and feel part of these conversations. Supervision records showed discussions around individual support needs, including flexible working needs, if needed.

Since our last inspection, a new registered manager had been appointed. They had been driving improvements in the service and ensuring aspects such as audits and information security were managed more robustly. However, the provider identified that some of the audits had not been completed on a regular basis. This meant opportunities to take immediate action may have been missed. Improvements had been made to the monitoring of care calls.

At our last inspection, we saw examples of daily notes being copied and pasted. Whilst the provider had identified and acted on this point, the daily notes remained a concern at this inspection as entries had been repeated. The registered manager had fortnightly meetings with the operations manager to discuss oversight of the service. The operations manager carried out quarterly visits to the premises to conduct their own checks and provide in-person support. The nominated individual carried out their own monthly audits.

People and families were encouraged to provide feedback and had submitted complaints and compliments which were acted upon.

The registered manager told us they had good working relationships with other professionals and their organisations. They promoted partnership working within their staff team and encouraged them to work with external groups. At our last inspection, the satisfaction survey results had not been analysed in a meaningful way. This had improved, with both questionnaires and telephone satisfaction monitoring being done by the care manager on a monthly basis. Separately, telephone monitoring calls were being conducted on a monthly basis and recorded on the provider’s systems.

Partner feedback showed the provider was working with them to make necessary improvements and they were responsive to identified issues.

Systems were in place which demonstrated the provider was working with its partners. Telephone quality monitoring and satisfaction surveys were being carried out. The provider responded to complaints and concerns received.

The registered manager told us they always looked for new ways to improve the service and was eager to learn. They said they valued feedback, which we could see they have actively been seeking to gather ideas for improvement. The registered manager welcomed feedback from partners to help them focus on improvements. The nominated individual told us they shared good practice with other services they were responsible for running.

The provider had made improvements in steps taken to learn from unwanted events and make the necessary changes to reduce the risk of these issues happening again. At this inspection, we saw evidence of these processes being used.