Hales Group Limited - Wickford

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 received care and support that was safe and there were enough skilled and competent staff deployed to meet their needs. This meant people were supported to live safely. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed, monitored and recorded by management and staff as required. Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were reported, investigated and recorded appropriately.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People said they received support to live safely, comfortably and were protected from the risks of abuse or harm. Relatives told us people felt safe with the staff team that visited them. One relative told us, "[Person] definitely feels safe in their (staff) care, they are a very good company.” Another relative said, “Definitely [person] is safe with the staff from Hales. We had an awful experience with previous carers but since Hales have taken over it is great. We trust them, they genuinely care about [person]."

The staff team told us they had received relevant up-to-date training to help ensure they could effectively safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood how to recognise it use and neglect and to protect people from its various forms.

Safeguard referrals had been raised and CQC had been notified where required. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to send in notifications appropriately to CQC. The provider and management team understood their responsibility to refer safeguarding incidents to the relevant external agencies without delay and to ensure they were fully investigated. Appropriate actions were taken to minimise the risk of similar incidents occurring and any lessons learned were shared throughout the staff team.

People and relatives said staff delivered a good standard of care. Risks to people were assessed and were managed well without unnecessarily restrictions. Relatives told us staff knew how to support them with known risks and that they were involved in planning the care people received one relative said, “My wife feels safe with the support she receives.” Another relative said, “[Person] definitely feels safe in their (staff) care, they are a very good company.”

Feedback from people, their relatives and staff demonstrated risks to people were safely managed. Staff had received relevant training to help them keep people safe. This included training regarding equipment used to support people such as hoists to help people move and transfer safely. Staff understood risks posed to people and explained to us how they would reduce the risk of injury or harm.

The provider had processes to enable staff to report concerns, incidents, and accidents. Lessons learnt were cascaded to staff to share learning. The management team operated a robust system of risk assessment to help ensure the safety and wellbeing of both people who use the service and the staff team. People were supported by staff who had received the necessary training and instruction to provide people with safe and effective care. Routine monitoring was undertaken by the quality assessor and the care co-ordinator. The registered manager and provider had oversight of the completed audits and any actions to be taken as a result. The audits included areas such as visit times, medicine administration records, daily records and complaints. Where issues were identified through this monitoring process they were added to the branch service improvement plan together with actions to be taken by whom and in what timescales.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and relatives praised the staff team and their feedback included, “Staff are very good, there are a team of just 4 staff who support [person] so we get chance to get to know them.” Another relative said, “The office staff (named person especially) often go above and beyond, I would definitely recommend the service.” A further relative told us, “Staff take time to talk and interact with [person], it is nice they do not just rush in and out.”

Staff said they felt they had enough time to carry out their care calls. They told us if they felt they needed longer with any individual they spoke with the quality assurance manager who would arrange for the care package to be assessed and extended if appropriate. This would enable staff to have adequate time to complete the needs of people. A staff member said, “If a person’s needs change, we will call the office and speak to the quality assessor and they will make the necessary arrangements to get more time if needed.” The management team told us recruitment was their most significant challenge to running a safe and effective service. They acknowledged that renumeration packages were key to recruiting experienced and knowledgeable staff and this had been their stumbling block recently. A staff member told us, “I feel that I would recommend Hales for people looking to work for us as we are a lovely bunch of care workers, we always try working as a team.”

Records showed staff were up to date with their basic core training. A staff member said, “I feel that I have adequate training and support, we are expected to complete online training exams which are great for refreshing knowledge and when required there is also in person training.” Supervision was provided by the quality assurance manager who occasionally worked alongside members of the staff team which gave them ample opportunity to assess the quality of the care provided. A staff member told us, “I feel we are trained and are supported well with training; I enjoy having people come out and shadow me now, [quality assurance manager] has come out and done spot checks on me which is good to see.” There had been instability within the management team with 3 managers in the past year. The current registered manager had only been working with Hales Wickford for a few months at the time of this assessment. A staff member told us, “We have had 3 different managers in the space of 12 months which has led to multiple changes in ways of working.” The registered manager advised that the routine day to day running of the service was overseen by them but supervisions and spot checks were undertaken by the quality assurance manager and the care co-ordinator. The registered manager had recently arranged annual appraisals for the staff team.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.