Genuine Carers - Kirklees

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.

People’s care and treatment was assessed and reviewed, taking into account their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. There was a person-centred approach although there was mixed and sometimes contradictory feedback from people and families about how well they were involved in the assessment process.

People’s care and support plans reflected their needs and consideration was made for any protected equality characteristics. The service was continually seeking ways to improve.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and support with them, ensuring their individual needs and preferences were considered. People’s care and support was regularly reviewed and there were processes in place to check people’s expectations were met.

Staff worked with people to obtain their consent and they respected their wishes around their care and support, promoting their independence, choice and control. People and relatives told us consent was consistently sought from people before care support was given.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s privacy and dignity, as well as the need to take people’s wishes and choices into account to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. This included supporting people to live as independently as possible. People and relatives said there were consistent, regular staff who knew their needs and abilities.

People were mostly well involved in planning their care. Care and support was accessible in a timely manner, based upon people’s assessed needs and preferences. Care plans were written in the first person and contained good levels of detail for staff to respond to people’s needs. However, some information was generic in every person’s care record, such as for continence care.

People could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

People and their relatives did not always know they could access information in their care records as these were electronically updated. The registered manager told us a paper copy was always available as well as advice and advocacy to help people understand their care and support. People were encouraged to give feed back, which was acted on and used to deliver improvements.

Some people and relatives said they sometimes felt excluded when staff spoke with one another in their own language during care tasks. We found people had previously discussed this with the management team. The registered manager said they would address this again with the whole staff team, to ensure staff worked inclusively so people felt fully informed and included in their care.

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.