HLC Care Agency Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People did not receive person-centred care. The principles of Right support, Right Care, Right Culture were not met; People’s care plans contained information that was often generic and there were no effective processes in place to ensure people had equity in their experiences and outcomes. The registered manager had not ensured systems were in place to listen to people and take action if areas for improvement were identified. We found one breach of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care.

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.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards: people did not receive person centred care.

The registered manager was unable to tell us details of people’s care and support they received. We asked the registered manager and client welfare officer how often one person was supported, including what days and times the calls were. They were unable to tell us this information and the care plan and daily notes also did not provide this information. One staff member was able to tell us how they supported a person with their personal care and what some of their preferences were. There were no effective systems in place to ensure people’s care and support were person centred. Care plans did not include person centred information and guidance to meet people’s needs. For example, one person’s care plan detailed generic information about their health risks which were not specific to how it affected them. Daily notes were not person centred and, in some cases, we identified some daily entries were copied and pasted for each day.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards: people's care and support was not delivered in a coordinated way.

The registered manager did not work in a coordinated way with other services. The registered manager, client welfare officer and staff were unable to tell us what other support people received. One person’s care plan outlined they had support from another professional or provider, however the registered manager and staff were unable to tell us who this was or how they ensured the person received coordinated and joined up care in a way that met the person’s preference and support needs.

People’s care and support was not delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The registered manager had failed to ensure that people who received care from a range of services had coordinated care that was responsive to their needs. People’s care plans did not detail the support they were receiving from other professionals. For example, one person’s care plan stated they received support on other days of the week from another provider, however there was no information on how the registered manager coordinated care with the other provider to ensure the best outcomes for that person.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. For example, people did not always have access to information that was accurate or up to date.

The registered manager told us that people’s care plans were accurate and up to date. However, we found this was not the case: people's care plans did not contain important information needed to enable staff to provide responsive, safe and effective care to people which met their assessed needs, wishes and preferences.

There were no processes in place to ensure people received information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date or provided in a way that they can understand, or which meets their communication needs. People did not always have information provided in an accessible way that was in line with the Accessible Information Standard. People’s care plans contained basic information about preferred communication methods. For example one person’s care plan stated staff would need to speak slowly but gave no further information or guidance for staff about why this was important. The registered manager failed to fully assess, with people, what support they needed regarding communication and how they would like information to be presented, such as the format of their care plan.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. For example, there was not an effective system in place for people to feedback how they felt about their care and support provided.

The registered manager told us they spoke with people regularly but this was not recorded. The registered manager could not evidence they had effective systems in place to gather feedback from people and their relatives.

The registered manager had not ensured that they regularly sought feedback from staff, people and their relatives. The registered manager had not sought formal feedback to ensure people were happy with the care provided and that any improvements could be acted upon, if identified. The registered manager had one record of feedback from a person which was dated April 2024, the person no longer received care from this provider. There had been one recorded complaint since the last inspection. It was not clear what action was taken by the registered manager or if the relative was happy with the registered manager's response to the complaint.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. For example, systems were not in place to ensure people were receiving their care in an equitable and timely way.

Staff were not able to tell us how they might support people to overcome barriers that some people might face. For example, one staff member told us a person had difficulty with verbal communication, but could not give further detail on how they support them to overcome the communication barrier.

We were not assured that people received their care in an equitable and timely way. The registered manager did not have systems in place to monitor care call times. There was no system in place to review if calls were late, early or missed altogether. The registered manager had not ensured that reasonable adjustment were considered in line with people’s equality and human rights, such as addressing communication barriers. The registered manager did not have systems in place to gather and use people’s feedback to actively seek and improve access for people who were more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. For example, systems were not in place to ensure potential inequality people may experience were addressed and considered.

The registered manager and staff told us they considered and promoted equality, however we found evidence that human rights were not always considered for people. For example, people’s care plans not fully assessing and mitigating any potential barriers, such as communication.

The registered manager had not proactively sought out ways to address any barriers to people to improve their experience of care and support provided. The registered manager had not ensured that reasonable adjustment were considered in line with people’s equality and human rights, such as addressing communication barriers that a person may have. For example, one person’s care plan detailed a potential communication barrier but provided no further detail on how staff would support them with this. Care plans were also not regularly reviewed to consider any changes, positive or negative, regarding potential barriers.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. For example, one persons end of life care plan contained very little detail about their wishes and preferences.

The registered manager told us that care plans were accurate and up to date, however they could not provide evidence that effective reviews were in place, including for end of life care planning.

People had end of life care plans in place, however these had not been reviewed with people or their families to ensure they were still happy with the information provided. For example, one person's end of life care plan was completed in 2018 and had not been reviewed: It did not highlight the person’s personal wishes or preferences around their end of life support. At the time of inspection, the service was not supporting anyone who was at the end of their life.