Hales Group Limited - Doncaster

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Senior staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. There was a commitment to learning lessons from incidents and to use them to review and evaluate practice and devise future plans. There was evidence of lessons learned, and effective action taken to address shortfalls. For instance, where people had not received their commissioned, person centred care, this was addressed with staff via several forums, policies were updated, and clear guidance was provided.

A relative told us, “There were some issues, but [registered manager] sorted it out. She’s very good is [the registered manager].” They went on to say, “We have 2 carers on a regular basis. Both are absolute gems. One has been coming since 2021. We occasionally have 1 or 2 others who fill in. and they’ve basically always been good and caring. I’ve got no complaints. [The care staff] are brilliant. I think Hales have very good carers.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Assessments of people’s needs and choices were completed. These included people’s life histories and what and who was important to them. This meant staff and partner professionals had important information to support people in a person centred way.

Staff told us the electronic care planning and records system provided clear information to support them in meeting people’s needs One staff member said, “I can know what I’m doing as it’s all in the App.” They added, “It also helps if I need to go to someone to cover in an emergency.”

People told us they were involved in planning their care. People’s comments included, “I’ve settled into the service. Staff are respectful. I have a care plan. Staff know my likes and dislikes”, “Yes, I have a care plan. It’s as I want it.” and “Before starting care my needs were talked through. Staff know my care needs. I get on fine with them. They’re kind and polite.”

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff protected people’s right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns appropriately. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place and staff had training in safeguarding people. They said they knew how to report concerns and felt listened to. Safeguarding concerns were recorded and reported appropriately, and because of lessons learned, practice was reviewed and updated to improve the service.

We saw evidence of good practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For instance, the service used various practical and helpful resources, such as a mental capacity tool kit to help them to assess people’s capacity to make decisions. The service publicised Safeguarding Adults week and placed emphasis on continuous professional and organisational learning. They provided guidance about and encouraged professional curiosity, recognising exploitation and the importance of listening to people.

People and relatives told us they felt staff delivered safe care. One person told us, “I’m safe with the staff. I’d phone the office if I wasn’t.” Another person said, “I feel safe with the staff. Any concerns I would speak to the staff. Yes, I could speak if I had any concerns.”

Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. There was a commitment to learning from incidents and to use them to review and evaluate practice and revise people’s care plans.

People and their relatives felt staff managed risks well and provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive. One person said, “I’d ring the office if I didn’t feel safe. They all listen. Staff always ask if anything else is needed.”

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risk assessments were in place for people, their home environments and any equipment used in the delivery their care and support. These were reviewed to make sure people’s care was delivered safely.

Staff were safely recruited. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff completed appropriate training and competency checks prior to carrying out care tasks. One staff member told us the induction provided time for new staff to shadow experienced staff and were only expected to carry out tasks without supervision, once they felt confident and competent.

There had been a period when the service received higher levels of complaints about the reliability of the service. One relative said, “There was a carer who was very unreliable, and I didn’t want them. That got sorted out and now I’ve got [staff names] and I’m chuffed to bits with them. We get on very well. They always ring me if they’re running late. I’m happy with the call times and I received my service when there was disruption because of the snow the other day. it’s all going well now, and has been for quite a while.”

A very small number of people said there remained areas for improvement. For instance, one relative said, “Things have settled down a lot so there are usually the same carers. My biggest bugbear is the times on their schedules do not really suit my relative’s needs and they are not the times that the carers actually come. There are still times when they don’t let me know they are running late and there are still times when they are rushing and don’t stay for the allocated time.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The provider had an infection prevention and control policy, and staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) as required. People and relatives told us staff washed their hands in between tasks. One person said, “Staff listen. I see them washing their hands. They wear gloves, aprons and face masks.”

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened People were given their medicines safely and in a timely manner. Care plans were detailed and ensured staff knew how to support people’s individual needs.

Staff told us information available to them via the online care plans enabled them to manage medicines safely and effectively. Staff were trained in medicines administration and had regular assessments of their practice and competence.

People were happy with the support they received with their medicines. People’s comments included. “I’m quite happy with my care. Carers have been coming to me for 2 months. It’s going very well. I requested an 8 to 8.30 visit for medication. I requested the same carers. They’re lovely and very helpful” and “I’m quite happy with it. The best thing is [staff] see me taking my medication. I’m very happy with the care. They look after me well. What do they do best? Everything.”