United Homecare 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 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. Records showed people were supported to understand their health needs and they and or their families were involved in planning for those needs. One person’s family told us, “(Registered manager) always makes sure that (they) discuss how to get the best out my mum. They try to engage them when they write care plans to make sure it fits into what they did in the past.” We saw that care plans had detailed personal histories and instructions for staff to discuss this area to better engage people.

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. One person’s family said, “(Registered manager) is a godsend”. Two other people described the registered manager as a ‘Godsend’ in managing the care and health of their families. One person’s family said, “They (staff members) manage my mum’s health and issues with GP as I can’t always do it.” Some people were encouraged to make their own appointments to suit their needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff knew if people wore glasses or hearing aids and reminded them if they had not got them with them. The registered manager told us they would match people with staff to best meet their needs. For example, they would recruit staff speaking people’s language to work with people whose first language was not English. If required, written text could be translated or enlarged if required to help people with communication.

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. We didn’t see any complaints and people and families told us that they had nothing to complain about. However, they knew the procedure for complaints and knew what to do should the need arose.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood it was important to involve people in all aspects of 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. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to the partner organisations such as community healthcare teams, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach in how they cared for people. One staff member said, “You must recognise different ethnicities and cultures, although we do not have any ethnic minority people right now I believe (registered manager), would recruit someone who could break any barriers, such as a language current staff do not speak.” The registered manager gave us examples of how they would manage people with disabilities or cultural differences including at the recruitment stage and providing large print where required.

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 provider’s records showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. 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. Although the service did not have anyone at the end of their life, the registered manager knew how to treat people with kindness and compassion and how to use DNACPR documentation as a tool to record peoples wishes.