Future Home Care Ltd Kent

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, since the providerchanged legal entities. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Although people’s care plans could have been more person-centred with more detailed guidance for staff to follow, staff were able to demonstrate how they supported people in a person-centred way. we spoke with stressed the importance of treating people as individuals and supporting them to follow their own interests and likes. Relatives told us people were supported to be at the centre of their care. One relative told us that their loved one was able to communicate what they wanted, and how they wanted their care to be delivered clearly to a staff team who understood them well and advocated for them. A staff member told us, “As long as they are at the centre of everything we do that’s all we really care about.”

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.

People received continuity in their care and treatment because services are flexible and joined up. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care that they received, and that they were fully involved in their care. Although the service did use agency staff for some parts of the service, relatives told us that the consistency of staff was good, which was important to meet the needs of their loved ones.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff understood people well and knew their communication needs. Staff we spoke with worked to share information in a way that was meaningful for the person. Some people were able to read information, so information was shared with them, and discussed to ensure they understood the context of the information. Other people used picture cards or tablets to aid their communication. When we spoke with people, staff were able to support our communication to ensure people’s voices were heard and understood.

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 and their relatives told us that their voice was heard. The registered manager had started a ‘our voice’ forum where people from across the service came together to share information on how the service could improve, what was working well and what could improve. During one meeting, people voiced that they didn’t appreciate staff being on their mobile phones when they were supporting people. People worked together to write an open letter to staff to share how this made them feel. At the next meeting, people did not feel the letter had the impact they wanted. The group decided it would be good to create a video to demonstrate how they felt when staff used their phones when supporting them.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff supported people to ensure they were able to access care and support. People’s houses had been adapted where necessary to ensure they were fit for purpose. For example, people who used wheelchairs had the equipment they needed to transfer safely, and adapted worksurfaces within the kitchen to ensure they had a space to prepare meals. Corridors and rooms were wide enough for people to mobilise without staff support. People were supported to access the community regularly in a wide range of ways. Some people enjoyed visiting a local day centre, others did activities with staff, and one person was working on leaving their house without staff support.

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.

People had been supported to build connections and relationships, when due to inequalities otherwise they may not have had the opportunity to do. Staff told us that they had supported one person to gain friendships by taking them to a local pottery studio. Staff told us that people had developed friendships and had interactions and engagement as a result of the activity. Staff told us, “It makes them feel a part of something, the activity and that people are interested in them as a person. [Name] will gleam when she talks to him, he has a big reaction. It must make them feel really a part of something.”

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.

The service was not supporting anyone who was actively at the end of their life. People had been asked about their end of life wishes, however some people had stated that they did not wish to discuss this. Prompts within care plans encouraged staff to explore this at a later date with the person.

Some people had suffered bereavements. They told us how staff supported them through difficult periods by talking about their loved ones and helping them celebrate their lives. People had been offered formal support in the form of counselling, but this had not been accepted.