Apollo Care Central Manchester

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 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.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of what mattered to each person and adapted their approach accordingly. They described getting to know people well, including their likes, dislikes, communication styles, daily routines and the things that helped them feel settled. Staff said they always looked at people’s preferences and choices and ensured care plans reflected these.

People and relatives told us staff listened to them and involved them in decisions about their care. Staff encouraged independence wherever possible, supporting people to participate in transfers, complete tasks in the way they preferred and maintain familiar routines. They used straightforward communication, offered reassurance and re‑approached care sensitively if someone declined support. Staff recognised when people needed time, when they were becoming overwhelmed, and when routines needed to be adjusted to reduce distress.

Care plans were personalised and included information about people’s histories, aspirations, triggers, and what helped them feel safe and comfortable. Staff said they regularly checked care plans on the digital app and were informed promptly when updates were made. They worked closely with families, sharing ideas, taking advice and ensuring care reflected what mattered most to the person. Families confirmed staff were responsive, communicated well and were willing to adapt their approach when needed.

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 experienced consistent, well‑coordinated care delivered by staff who knew them well. Staff told us they often support the same people over long periods, which has helped them build strong relationships, understand routines and recognise changes in wellbeing. One staff member explained they had supported the same person since 2024 and felt they knew them and their relatives extremely well. This continuity enabled staff to share ideas, take advice from relatives and make suggestions that were listened to and acted upon.

Care plans were updated promptly, and staff said they were always informed when changes were made. Information was shared through the digital care‑planning app and reinforced through WhatsApp groups, staff meetings and in‑person contact. Staff described communication as excellent and said the registered manager ensured updates were passed on quickly, so everyone remained aligned in their approach.

Where packages involved multiple providers, staff worked collaboratively to maintain consistency. For complex 24‑hour packages, staff described clear routines, shared understanding of triggers, and coordinated approaches that helped keep people safe and settled. Staff said small, stable teams were intentionally built around each person to strengthen continuity and reduce delays in recognising changes in behaviour or health.

Staff reported arriving on time for visits and informing the registered manager immediately if delays occurred. The registered manager then communicated with the person receiving care to ensure expectations were managed and support remained reliable.

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

People and relatives were given information in ways they could understand, and staff ensured updates were shared promptly and clearly. Staff explained care plans and risk assessments were stored on a digital app, which they found easier to use than paper. They said the registered manager always informed them when changes were made, and information was reinforced through WhatsApp groups, staff meetings and in‑person contact. This helped ensure staff remained up to date and able to provide consistent support.

People told us they received leaflets and written information about the service, and staff said they were aware of peoples communication needs, preferences and routines. Where people were forgetful or needed information repeated, staff used straightforward language, gentle reminders and adapted communication styles to ensure understanding. Staff said they always asked for consent, waited for responses and respected people’s right to refuse.

Staff described good communication with families, sharing ideas, taking advice and ensuring care reflected what mattered most to the person. Relatives confirmed they knew who to contact if they had questions or concerns and felt communication from the service was open and reliable.

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.

Compliments were frequent and consistent, with relatives and people receiving care praising the person‑centred approach, meaningful activities, rapport building and respect for individual preferences. People valued the reliability of staff, the continuity of carers and the predictable routines which helped them feel safe and settled. Feedback also highlighted staff competency, particularly in moving and handling, specialist knowledge and attentiveness to subtle changes in wellbeing. Relatives described improved mood, stronger relationships and increased trust as a result of staff engagement and emotional support.

Complaints were present but well managed. Any complaints were addressed promptly. Relatives reported that issues were taken seriously and resolved transparently.

The service showed a clear learning culture. Small complaints often led to system improvements, such as stock‑level alerts, clearer communication pathways and photo sharing for meals.

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

People experienced reliable support and told us staff consistently arrived when expected. Staff said they always informed the registered manager if they were running late, and the registered manager ensured people were updated promptly. Families confirmed visits were not cancelled and described the service as dependable and committed to maintaining continuity. Staff also reported having sufficient travel time between visits, which helped ensure punctuality and reduced the risk of delays.

The service supported people with a range of needs, including complex 24‑hour packages, and people requiring moving and handling support. Staff had the training and competency checks needed to deliver safe care, and additional shadowing or refresher training was provided when concerns were raised. Where packages involved multiple providers, staff worked collaboratively to ensure seamless support and avoid gaps in care.

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 described supporting individuals with a wide range of needs, including older adults, people with acquired brain injuries, those requiring 24‑hour support, and people with fluctuating cognitive or emotional needs. Feedback showed people received personalised care which reflected their routines, preferences and communication styles, ensuring experiences were tailored rather than standardised.

Continuity of care was strong. Staff often supported the same people for long periods, enabling them to recognise subtle changes, understand triggers and respond quickly. This consistency helped ensure people with more complex needs did not experience poorer outcomes or delays in support. Relatives repeatedly praised the reliability of staff; the predictable routines and the strong rapport built over time.

People without family involvement were supported equitably. Staff ensured these people were listened to, consent was sought, and decisions were respected. Staff described adapting communication, offering reassurance and maintaining predictable routines to ensure people felt safe and in control. Where people had relative involvement, staff worked collaboratively, sharing ideas and taking advice, ensuring outcomes were shaped around what mattered most to the person.

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.

People and their relatives were actively involved in planning their future care, and staff ensured support adapted as needs changed. Staff described working closely with people and relatives to understand what mattered to them, including long‑term goals, preferred routines, aspirations and any anticipated changes in health or independence. Relatives confirmed they were regularly consulted and felt their views were listened to and respected.

Care plans reflected people’s wishes about how they wanted to be supported as their needs evolved. For people with deteriorating mobility, cognitive changes or increasing emotional needs, staff adapted routines, communication approaches and support strategies to maintain safety and comfort. Staff said they updated care plans promptly when changes occurred.

People receiving 24‑hour or complex care benefited from consistent teams who understood their triggers, preferences and long‑term aims. Staff recognised when people needed additional reassurance, when routines needed adjusting, and when future planning required input from families or allied professionals. For people approaching end of life, staff worked sensitively with families to ensure comfort, dignity and alignment with personal wishes.