Academy Homecare Services

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 is requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 57 (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 care records provided person-centred information about people’s needs.

Person-centred information about people’s needs was not always detailed in their care plans. Where information was documented, it did not always contain sufficient guidance to ensure people’s individualised needs could be met, such as regarding people’s mobility needs.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s individual needs, which was supported by people and relative feedback. Leaders sought the views of people and relatives regarding the care people received through occasional satisfaction telephone calls and visits.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the health and care needs of people, so care was not always joined-up or supportive of continuity.

Processes were not in place to ensure people’s care records contained relevant and detailed information about people’s needs. This meant staff did not always have guidance relating to people’s needs to ensure they achieved positive outcomes.

Safety event records which detailed incidents of risk and harm were not always appropriately reported to stakeholders such as the local authority safeguarding team and CQC, where doing so would have enabled greater joined-up working and greater understanding and learning. The provider’s failure to not always report notifiable safety events to others meant people were at risk of their risks and needs not being known and investigated.

People and relatives told us staff understood the health and care needs of the people they supported.
 

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

Care plans did not always include clear information about people’s specific communication needs. For example, where information made reference to how a person’s communication can become affected when their emotional needs change, there was limited information detailing how this presented and how it could be supported. This meant people were at risk of their communication needs not being met by staff.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s communication needs, and relatives told us they supported this. One relative explained, “[My relative] has a communication need, but despite that we hear the carers talking to and conversing with them. They certainly position themselves so that [my relative] can hear them.”
 

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.

A complaints procedure was in place, and people and relatives told us they were able to contact the provider should they need to, including should they need to share feedback or concerns. One relative said, “I'd have no hesitation in speaking to them if I wasn't happy with anything; I'd speak to anybody in the office.”

People, relatives and healthcare professionals were involved and listened to during the assessment process before people moved to the service. People and relative’s views about their care were encouraged through satisfaction telephone calls and visits, and relatives told us they were made aware when there were changes to their relations needs.
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care records did not always provide information about people’s needs, made limited reference to how people’s care had been informed by access to healthcare professionals, and they were not reviewed nor audited to support care remaining appropriate and responsive.

People and relatives told us, which was supported by care records, the times of people’s calls were not always provided as agreed, which meant people’s immediate needs were at risk of not always being met at required times.

With the exception of feedback regarding some call times, people and relatives told us staff worked flexibly around people’s routines and health needs to ensure access to support.
 

Staff listened were aware of the people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

An equality and diversity policy was in place, and staff received equality and diversity training, which meant the service was aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

Staff tailored support to people, so they had comparable experiences, regardless of disability, health conditions, communication needs, or background. For example, staff provided additional mobility support so people could access activities within the wider community.

People achieved outcomes comparable to others, including maintained independence, improved comfort and consistent access to social opportunities. People and relatives told us
staff treated people fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstrating equity in both experiences and outcomes.
 

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.

While people were not in receipt of end-of-life care at the time of the assessment, people’s care plans mostly did not include information on the longer-term wishes and preferences which could be important to them.

The provider acknowledged this information had not been captured and stated their intention to address the situation by reviewing people’s care plans with them and / or their relatives.