• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

South Norfolk Carers Limited

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Amelia House, Norwich Road, Brooke, Norwich, Norfolk, NR15 1HJ (01508) 558218

Provided and run by:
South Norfolk Carers Limited

Report from 9 October 2024 assessment

On this page

Responsive

Inadequate

Updated 16 January 2025

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to complaints management.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Person-centred Care

Score: 1

The service did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Whilst people told us they had been involved in the planning of their care when they first received the service, people told us where reviews had taken place these were not effective, and they did not feel listened to. People told us that when they needed changes made to the care they received, this was not always provided or fully discussed with them. Staff told us that people’s care plans were not always accurate, up to date or contained enough information to deliver person-centred care and our observations confirmed this. The service had also failed to meet the accessible information standard, which aims to ensure people receive information in a format that meet their needs. For example, despite people requesting alternative methods, the service only sent out care rotas via email which did not meet people’s needs.

Care provision, Integration and continuity

Score: 1

There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Despite the service mainly supporting older people with physical health needs and/or living with dementia, people told us the service did not fully understand the needs of this group of people. For example, calls were often too close, or too spaced apart, meaning people did not receive regular assistance with using the toilet or meal provision. One relative told us, ‘Sometimes [family member] doesn’t get a morning call until nearly lunchtime. This isn’t good for [family member] as they are incontinent and have to cope with being soiled until carers arrive.’ Staff had received training in some topics associated with the group of people the service supported. However, dedicated training on such subjects as falls, nutrition and hydration, and dysphagia had not been completed.

Providing Information

Score: 1

The service did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had failed to assess the communication needs of the people who used the service so could not demonstrate these were being met. Furthermore, people told us their communication needs were not consistently met, specifically in relation to how they were provided with information on which staff member would be supporting them and when. People also raised concerns about how they were provided with information relating to charges for their care. Significant changes had recently been made to how people were being charged and whilst this was set by the Local Authority, people told us they had not been informed of these changes or provided with full information by the service. One person who used the service said, ‘I feel the company hasn’t managed fees well. I feel I am being ripped off; we don’t know what we are paying for… I have been kept in the dark about everything, management haven’t sent out any information about the changes.’

Listening to and involving people

Score: 1

Whilst there were some processes in place for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support, they had not been effective at rectifying people’s concerns or improving the service. They did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People’s concerns and complaints had not been listened to, taken seriously, recorded, investigated, or appropriately responded to. Out of the 13 people we spoke to who either used the service, or a family member did, eight people told us they had previously raised concerns and all eight told us their concerns had not been adequately addressed. People told us this was because their concerns were either dismissed, not heard and/or understood, or were rectified initially but then lapsed back to how things were. Furthermore, the service had no effective and accessible system in place to record, manage, investigate, and monitor complaints and concerns. They were therefore unable to demonstrate concerns were managed appropriately or used to make improvements to the service.

Equity in access

Score: 1

The service did not make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. People did not consistently receive the care they needed at a time they either chose or was previously planned. This was because the service did not ensure people received their care calls at consistent and planned times and that their care was delivered by the same group of staff who knew their needs. Staff agreed. Our assessment findings showed that the service was not consistently reliable meaning people were unable to access support when they needed or wished for it.

Equity in experiences and outcomes

Score: 1

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. Despite supporting vulnerable older people, the service did not demonstrate it understood, and consistently met, the needs of the people they supported. People did not feel listened to and their concerns were not acted upon to ensure they experienced improvements in the service they received. The service could not demonstrate it proactively sought out ways to address barriers for people to improve people’s experience and ensure their outcomes were consistently good for all. Care staff agreed and showed insight into the impact these shortfalls had on people but felt powerless to make improvements despite also raising concerns.

Planning for the future

Score: 1

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s end of life care needs had not been assessed, planned for, and recorded. Despite us viewing the care plan and associated records for someone on end of life care and with advanced health needs, there was no end of life care plan in place or an acknowledgement that the person was coming to the end of their life. Staff agreed that they were not consistently given information about when people were entering the latter stages of their lives and told us the impact this had. Staff had, however, received training in end of life care.