APT Care Limited Also known as Chaucer House

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 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.

Most people and relatives told us they were involved in developing and reviewing care plans. One person said, “They often ring me to check in and go through my care plan,” while another told us, “I am completely involved in my care planning.” Relatives of people with more complex needs, including people living with learning disabilities, described being fully involved, with regular reviews held alongside the provider and social workers.

Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s individual needs, preferences, routines, and cultural and religious requirements. Staff told us care plans provided clear, detailed guidance, including medical history and signs to monitor, which supported safe and personalised care.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people when needs changed. They monitored people closely, escalated concerns promptly, and worked with health professionals to ensure care plans and risk assessments were updated. The provider used an electronic care recording system that enabled staff to access up-to-date information and record detailed, personalised notes, supporting continuity of care and effective oversight.

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.

We received some mixed feedback about how staff supported people when they declined personal care. Some relatives described positive experiences where carers used gentle encouragement and reassurance effectively. Care plans included guidance on how staff should encourage people, respect consent, and escalate concerns where refusals were repeated. Leaders recognised the importance of oversight in this area and told us they were taking action to strengthen monitoring and work with people and their families to reduce risks associated with unmet care needs.

Despite this, most people and relatives told us they received consistent care from familiar staff. People said carers usually arrived on time, stayed for the expected duration, and followed established routines, which helped them feel safe and reassured. Continuity was particularly important for people living with dementia and people with learning disabilities, and the provider took this into account when planning care. One person said, “I’m very happy with the consistency of care because I know when they’re coming, and it just makes life easier,” while another added, "They work through a checklist before they leave which is excellent; for example, they straighten my bed and make sure I have a drink.”

The provider used an electronic care monitoring system to support coordination and continuity. This recorded visit timings, duration, and care delivered, enabling the management team to oversee delivery and identify potential disruption. Leaders monitored capacity and rotas closely and took action to minimise disruption, particularly during busier periods.

Staff worked with people, families, and other professionals to support continuity when needs changed. This included sharing relevant information and reviewing care arrangements to ensure people continued to receive appropriate and joined-up support.

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

People were given written information before using the service, which explained what they could expect, how to raise concerns or complaints, and where to find additional local services that could support their health and well-being.

The provider recognised and responded to people’s individual communication needs. These were identified during assessment and recorded in care plans. Where required, information was provided in alternative formats or languages. The service also employed staff who spoke a wide range of languages and matched carers to people where this supported effective communication.

Staff understood the importance of consent and confidentiality. They told us they understood GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) requirements and only shared information with appropriate consent. Records and staff feedback confirmed clear expectations around the safe and appropriate use of electronic systems and messaging.

With appropriate consent, people and relatives could access care records through a secure online portal to view care notes and updates. Uptake of this system was limited, but leaders were aware of this and had plans in place to improve awareness and engagement.

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 relatives described positive relationships with staff and the office team, which supported open communication. Most told us they felt comfortable speaking up and knew how to raise concerns if needed. One person said, “I’ve never had any complaints at all, but I know I would be listened to by the agency,” while another told us, “I feel really listened to by both carers and the office.”

The provider gathered feedback regularly through surveys, spot checks, and telephone calls. Survey results showed high levels of satisfaction, with only a small number of negative responses. Where issues were identified, actions were taken and recorded. For example, feedback about carers rushing or communication difficulties had resulted in additional training, increased supervision, and closer monitoring of visits.

Complaints records showed concerns were acknowledged promptly, investigated, and responded to in a timely way. Apologies were given where appropriate, and leaders monitored complaints for themes and used the learning to improve practice across the service.

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

Most people and relatives told us they received a reliable and responsive service. People described care workers as dependable and flexible. They said carers usually arrived on time, or within expected timeframes, and stayed for the full duration of visits. One person said, “They come on time, they are great - we have a good routine and great communication,” while another told us, “They always stay the same amount of time and go the extra mile if I need anything.”

People gave examples of the service responding promptly when additional support was needed. One person explained that when they contacted the service following an incident after carers had left, staff returned quickly to provide support. Many people and relatives also spoke positively about seeing familiar carers regularly and receiving consistent support, which helped them feel confident their needs would be met.

A small number of people said their preferred visit times could not always be accommodated. However, others told us the service had responded positively to requests to change visit times. Leaders told us they reviewed rota capacity and timing requests to try to respond to people’s preferences wherever possible.

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 and relatives told us the service respected equality, diversity, and human rights. No one we spoke with raised concerns about discriminatory practice. People confirmed they were offered choices about how their care was provided, including preferences for male or female carers, which helped ensure care reflected their cultural, religious, and personal wishes.

Care was adapted to recognise and support people’s individual backgrounds, beliefs, and lifestyles where this was important to them. Relatives described how staff provided support in a respectful and non-judgemental way, taking account of people’s routines, social activities, and community connections. This demonstrated an understanding of potential barriers or stigma and showed staff worked to reduce the risk of inequality in people’s experiences.

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.

Staff understood the importance of compassionate, person-centred end-of-life care and most felt confident supporting people sensitively at all stages of life. Staff described good end-of-life care as focusing on comfort, dignity, respect, and empathy, and told us they worked with other professionals to ensure people were supported appropriately.

People and relatives told us they were involved in planning decisions where this was relevant. Some said these matters were managed by family members, while others confirmed appropriate legal arrangements, such as lasting power of attorney, were in place.

Care records showed end-of-life plans were clearly documented where relevant. One care plan we reviewed recorded the person’s wish to remain at home at the end of their life and included clear guidance for staff on pain management, consent, dignity, and responding to changing needs. Records also showed family members who held lasting power of attorney were involved in planning and review discussions, with consent arrangements clearly documented. This showed people had support to ensure their wishes could be represented when needed.