Logic Care Solutions

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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been ratedgood. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Some care plans were very detailed in relation to most areas of people’s care and support needs. Some care plans lacked detail, these were amended by the management team during the assessment. It was not evident that people or their relatives had been involved in the reviews, changes and amendments to the care plans. Oral care was lacking in the care plans and within the care records. A person who required full support with all of their personal care needs had a task ‘oral care’ written in their care plan twice a day. However, the care plan itself did not give staff instructions around this, or detail if the person had dentures or their own teeth. We reviewed their care records and found no entries to show staff had supported with this. It was not clear that people were having their needs met in relation to their oral health care. Staff had not been recording when they had offered teeth cleaning support or when people had declined.

Relatives told us the care and support met their loved ones needs. A relative said, “I was unhappy [with the previous agency] which is why I switched to this agency. This agency checked with me if I was happy with them and the changes made which I was. I have been involved in my mother’s care and decisions from the beginning.” People told us they enjoyed the company of the staff that knew them well. A person said, “I have the same staff all day.” Staff told us they enjoyed the company of the people they supported.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care. Information was shared with staff regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. Staff told us how they supported people and their relatives. Records showed most people had consistent staff supporting them. Some people had more staff involved in their care which they did not always like. A person said, “I do like to have carers who like to know my needs and wants.”

A health and social care professional told us,

“If I have requested information from LCS (Logic Care Solutions), I have never had any issues with a response. If they feel we require updating on clients i.e. change in need, then from my experience, they act on this as appropriate. For example, they were recently allocated to one of our clients who has dementia, they kept me informed of any issues that occurred, how they overcame them and how best to approach moving forward in future and if they felt calls needed to be extended to provide the best possible support. They liaised with the family very well and reassured the family during difficult times.”

A staff member said, “We report if [people are] losing weight, dehydrated, or appearing pale or tired.” Another staff member said, “We are reassessing people whose needs have changed, we involve the OT (occupational therapist) and involve other professionals.”

Most relatives told us they felt staff communicated well them well. A relative said, “They make adjustments like when I mentioned my mum requires them to talk slower and be a little loud.” Another relative said, “I wish they would use my communication book as requested to highlight shopping I need to get.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were able to access information. The provider had an accessible information policy in place. The service supported people with a variety of communication needs. No one had written information provided to them in different forms at the time of the assessment. The registered manager told us information could be made available in a variety of ways to meet people’s needs. They explained a person had their letters read to them. Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs for example, people who may have hearing or vision impairments. A person did not speak English as a first language, when there was difficulty in understanding the person’s relative acted as translator.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People were offered opportunities to feedback about the service; the registered manager showed us surveys which some people had completed, 9 surveys had been completed in 2025, all of which contained positive feedback. The provider sent these to people every 3 months. The provider carried out monthly telephone monitoring calls. People and relatives told us that the service was responsive to their needs. A person told us, “[Registered manager] did visit week the before last and we discussed a change in carers. The manager is good she knows what I want and what I don’t want.” Staff described how they listened to and respected people.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People lived independently in their own homes in the community and mostly managed their own daily activities and community engagement. We had difficulty getting in contact with the service and the management team before the assessment and during the assessment because the phone lines were poor and either the caller or recipient could not hear the other person. When we were at the Logic Care Solutions office, we observed that this happened with people, staff and relatives when they called. Despite this, people and their relatives told us they were always able to make contact with the service when they needed to. People and their relatives could use the online system to review care notes and leave messages for the registered manager. The management team told us that sometimes staff supported people with additional tasks to meet their needs such as essential food shopping or liaising with the pharmacy.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant their care was not always tailored in response to this. It was clear from some care records people had time to chat with staff as part of care visits, showing that the visits were not task focused. However, some people experienced shortened care visits, which evidenced that not everyone had the same experience. The registered manager carried out spot checks to ensure people had equal opportunities and positive experiences from the care provided. After the assessment the registered manager told us, “For shortened calls, this seems to be happening a lot but with some clients. Carers do not leave till the tasks are completed and would usually check with the clients if it was okay to leave. Often, the clients are happy for them to leave once they have completed the tasks. They will stay longer at other times if the need arises or there is an unexpected delay. However, this is an issue I am targeting with the carers, and we have decided to check and take disciplinary action if the situation persists. I assure you they are not rushing or shortening calls to get to the next client or finish early.”

People were 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. Some people had a DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) form in place. This is an advanced decision not to attempt CPR. It is not about other treatments or care. Some staff told us they had received training to support them to provide end of life care when needed. Staff knowledge of end-of-life support was varied. At the time of the assessment, no one was at the end of their life.