Minster Homecare

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a desire and commitment to put people at the centre of their care, but records and practices did not always fully reflect this. There were gaps and omissions in support plans and the monitoring of people’s support, which potentially impacted the degree which care was person-centred. Risk assessments were often general and not fully specific to the person themselves. The provider was in the process of reviewing these to ensure they were more meaningful and person-centred.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about whether they felt the care was person-centred. Some people were very happy with the care and told us, “Staff go above and beyond and treat [person] like a family member rather than a client.” However, others spoke about requesting consistent staff teams but not receiving this, with feedback including “There have been so many different staff, and it’s got worse. I have mentioned it to the office, and they said they would try and get the same staff but so far, they haven’t managed it.” The provider confirmed they had completed a lot of work on the rotas to improve the consistency of staff going forward for people.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the health and care needs of people so there was the potential for care to not always be joined up between services. We found no evidence of impact, but there were some omissions in people’s support plans or a lack of clarity and detail around information provided by other healthcare professionals. Some daily monitoring charts recommended by other services, such as food and fluid charts, were not robustly completed and there was a lack of oversight of these charts. The new manager implemented regular audits and monitoring during the assessment process so that people’s care would be joined up between services.

The provider assessed people’s communication needs and was able to provide information for people in different formats if needed. The provider used different technologies, such as electronic apps, to support them to provide information effectively to people. The provider had implemented systems which enabled them to know if staff were running late to a call, so people could be contacted in a timely manner to inform them of this.

The provider did have ways for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider carried out annual surveys, reviews with people, spot checks and telephone calls to see how things were going, However, we received mixed feedback from people about whether their concerns were listened to or actioned. One person told us, “We constantly bring things up but nothing changes”, whereas other feedback included “Any issues are resolved in a professional manner”, and “Any concerns I phone them, and they sort it out in an instant.” The provider was continuing to implement changes following the previous service user / relative survey and told us they would shortly be carrying out a further survey to assess whether the changes implemented had made a positive difference.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider operated an on-call system so people could contact them 24 hours per day, when needed. People told us, “Staff contact us out of hours”, and “If a support worker ever has any concerns or queries, they will contact the office or the on-call.” The provider had supported people to install technology systems in their homes which supported safe monitoring and care and in a way which worked for people and their individual needs.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, and human rights as part of their induction and ongoing refresher programme. People's protected characteristics were considered during initial assessments of people's needs, and reasonable adjustments were made where required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff had recently completed training in equality and diversity and understood their responsibilities. We found no evidence of any discrimination or inequalities during the assessment and staff spoke positively about working in an inclusive and supportive environment.

People were not always supported to plan for their future. Planned future outcomes were not always considered and included in people’s support plans and where applicable, people did not always have clear goals in place to achieve. The provider was in the process of reviewing and updating support plans to include these future plans. No-one was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment, but a comprehensive policy was in place and staff had received appropriate training in this area.