Hand of Hope Homecare Services 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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. Most people and relatives told us they had a care plan which was reviewed. One relative told us they were not informed when the carers were changed and the timings could be better, however, other relatives told us the carers arrived on time. For one person who was identified as having complex needs, there was no guidance within their care records on how to communicate with them to ensure the person was included in their care in a person-centred way.

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 registered manager told us they worked with GPs, district nurses, the housing association and occupational therapists. Staff told us, “Different people have individual needs” and they would “Refer to the person’s care plan for how to support people”. However, we found information was not always kept up to date.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Relatives told us their loved ones were supported by staff who spoke their language. The registered manager told us if a person had communication needs they would for example, communicate with the person by using a white board. However, we identified for one person whose care records stated they were visually impaired, there was no information included within the care records on how information would be provided to them in a format tailored to their individual needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Relatives and people gave us good feedback regarding communication with the provider. The provider actioned a ‘clients survey’. However, this did not evidence who had oversight of any identified issues and how this would be measured and monitored for improvements. The daily notes did not always evidence people were asked about their care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People and relatives told us told us there was no discrimination and no complaints when communicating with the office. A relative told us they had the contact details of and the emergency out of hours number for the service.

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 told us the service were supportive even when they had an urgent hospital appointment and, “We are still getting to know each other, but we are getting there”. A relative told us the service visited their loved one with the occupational therapist.

People were not always 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 relatives told us end of life wishes had been discussed. The registered manager told us end of life discussions were part of the care planning and if a person’s health deteriorated, they would refer to the GP and the local authority. However, care records did not always show how people were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. We were not always assured people were supported to plan for important life changes and to make informed choices about their care.