Lovage 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Relatives felt care was delivered in a person centred way. One relative told us, “My relative has a chat about needs and preferences, she says what she wants and the staff just do it.”

We saw care was individual and tailored to people’s needs. People had their preferences, likes and dislikes recorded in their care plans which showed staff what was important to people. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved with the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their care, this meant people were at the centre of this.

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 provider told us there were systems in place to monitor and review care. We saw these systems were followed when needed. The provider told us, where possible, they tried to ensure people received a consistent staff team to ensure the care they received was consistent. People and rotas that we viewed confirmed this. One relative said, “Don't tend to know which staff are coming, but have regular staff, a same face or thereabouts.”

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

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

The provider told us information was available to people in different formats if they required this. They confirmed and we saw people had individual plans in place identifying their preferred method of communication. Staff confirmed they were aware of these plans and knew how people communicated.

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.

Most people and relatives felt involved with their care, listened to and knew how to complain. One person said, “I have had no involvement in care planning.” However, they went on to tell us they had no concerns with how their care had been delivered and nothing had changed since they started using the service.

People and relatives knew how to complain. One relative told us, “There is a pack with contact details if I wanted to make a complaint, but [I] have not made any official complaints.”

The provider frequently got feedback from people and relatives on the care they received, they did this either face to face, over the telephone or by asking them to complete quality surveys. The feedback we reviewed reflected positive experiences and outcomes.

Although no complaints had been received, there was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure.

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

People raised no concerns with the support they received and had access to other health professionals.

There were processes in place that could be followed if needed. The provider told us they had access to external agencies, who they could engage with if needed.

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.

The provider was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and were able to tell us the action they would take if concerns arose. There were systems in place to consider how people felt and their 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.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the planning of end-of-life care.

The provider confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they were aware of action to take if needed and as part of their assessment process had considered people’s thoughts and preferences. When people had ReSPECT forms in place, these were available and staff were aware. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment. A ReSPECT form is a written summary of a person’s personal preferences and clinical recommendations for emergency medical care and treatment.