Heart of Gold 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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.

Overall, people’s care plans were detailed, person – centred and clearly described their care, treatment and support needs. However, as mentioned in previous sections of the report, there were some occasions in which people’s needs had not been risk assessed.

People’s care plans included their interests and preferences. The care plans contained a section which was titled ‘all about me’ and contained detail on the person’s presenting diagnoses. A further section, titled ‘My life history’ provided sufficient detail about the person’s life including where they were born, information about their family and friends and their key likes and dislikes.

People and relatives felt staff accommodated people’s individual requests including having the same staff each time and altering call times when this was required. A relative told us, “The call times are when we want them, not when we are told by the service this is when we have to have them.”

Staff told us they had enough time to read a person’s care plan and associated documentation before they started supporting them.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

The provider had policies and procedures in relation to complaints and compliments which had sufficient information in them and provided the relevant contact details. The service user welcome guide provided information for people on how to raise complaints or concerns.

The provider had completed questionnaires for people who used the service. Responses had been received between January and September 2025 and all provided positive feedback. Although the office had noted on the front of the questionnaire the name of the person who had completed the forms, there were signatures missing from many which undermined the validity and evidential value of the feedback.

‘Service user reviews’ were completed. We saw evidence of 12 reviews being completed on the 17 November 2025, which was the first day of our visit. Questions included what the person thought of the quality of care, whether their needs were being met, whether they felt involved in the planning and if support workers attended on time and stayed for the duration of time. Results from the most recent set of service user review forms were positive.

People and relatives told us the service communicated effectively with them. A relative said, “Communication is excellent with the carers and the manager, we discuss everything in great detail to make sure that [person] is looked after in the best way possible.”

Although the registered manager confirmed there had been no complaints, they did provide us with a concerns log. This had been recorded well but indicated recurring themes which had not been addressed robustly as they were continuously raised.

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 registered manager had a good knowledge of how people who they supported were likely to be discriminated against. They also understood the right support, right care and right culture framework which was produced by the CQC aimed at improving care for autistic people and those with learning disabilities. The registered manager was also aware of key human rights legislation and the equality act.

The provider ensured people’s communication needs were assessed and adaptations to care were made when required. Simplified language, visual prompts and other communication tools were used.

Staff received training to support them to understand people’s different diagnoses including dementia awareness and autism. However, we found some staff’s understanding of these conditions differed.