Caring@Home 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

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 ensured that people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. They worked in partnership with people to decide how to respond to any changes in their needs.

We reviewed daily records, which reflected information in people’s care plans. Staff confirmed that care plans and assessments were regularly updated to reflect changes in people’s needs.

People told us, “Before any changes are even thought of, we’re always consulted. Reviews aren’t just done for the sake of it, but to make sure that [relative] gets the best from the care package.” Another person said, “My care plan is light on personal care but has a strong emphasis on my mental well‑being.”

The provider demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community. This ensured care was joined‑up, flexible, and supported people’s choices and continuity of care.

People told us, “Staff get [relative] chatting. [Relative] trusts them, so when I have my ‘day off’, I know [relative] is in safe hands.”

Staff told us they supported the same people on a regular basis, and we reviewed records which confirmed that people experienced continuity of care through consistent care staff.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. There was limited evidence that information had been adapted to meet people’s individual communication needs, in line with the Accessible Information Standard and best practice guidance such as Right Care, Right Support, Right Culture (for example, information provided in easy-read formats).

We also found that the provider’s current CQC rating was not available on their website, despite being displayed in the office.

The nominated individual told us that information about the service, including contact details and how to make complaints or raise concerns, was shared with people at the start of care.

However, people told us, “We have a continuous dialogue with the care team and management,” indicating that communication between people and the provider was open and ongoing.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback, express ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff did not consistently involve people in decisions about their care or inform them of changes made as a result of their feedback.

The nominated individual told us that people, and where appropriate their relatives, were involved in care planning and reviews. However, people’s experiences did not always reflect this. One person told us, “I had an assessment with them at the start. We discussed my preference for male carers, but I can’t say that this has been done. I know they can’t do it all the time, but I expected better.”

We saw evidence of reviews being completed and feedback being gathered; however, this was not always applied or acted upon. This meant people were not always assured that their preferences and feedback were fully considered or used to improve their care.

The provider ensured that people were able to access the care, support, and treatment they needed when required. The provider told us, “We support people to attend hospital, GP, and other appointments.” We saw evidence of people accessing the community with the support of care staff, in line with their care plans.

This approach was consistent with best practice guidance, including Right Care, Right Support, Right Culture, as it promoted people’s independence, inclusion, and access to health and community services. One person told us that staff supported them to attend meetings as part of their voluntary role, demonstrating a person‑centred approach to promoting independence and social inclusion.

Staff understood the systems in place for out‑of‑hours support, including how to contact emergency services when required. This meant people had appropriate access to care and assistance at all times.

Staff and leaders demonstrated that they actively listened to information about people who may be more likely to experience inequality in care, treatment, or outcomes, and adjusted support to meet individual needs.

The service had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy in place. Training records showed that staff had completed EDI training, and those spoken with demonstrated a clear understanding of its principles.

One staff member told us, “No discrimination faced, working happily and enjoy my job. Any problems can be shared with the senior or manager.”

People using the service did not raise any concerns about discrimination, which indicated a positive and inclusive culture within the service.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes in a timely way, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We saw documentation indicating that people’s end-of-life wishes were not always clearly recorded or readily accessible. This meant there was a risk that people’s preferences might not be consistently followed during periods of deterioration or in emergency situations.

Care documentation did include some information about people’s wishes, such as DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decisions and RESPECT forms (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment), which summarise a person’s preferences for emergency care and treatment in line with their values and clinical needs.

Staff had received training in end-of-life care. They told us they understood this information and knew where to locate it, demonstrating some awareness of people’s preferences and the systems in place.