Sky 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.
People received person-centred care. Care plans were person-centred, based around the needs of the individual. The registered manager told us, “I will get them [people] involved with the care plan so it’s person-centred.” Staff had a good understanding of how to support people in a personalised way and people told us they were happy with the care provided. A relative said, “[Person] has been very happy with them, they employ someone [person] is compatible with.”
 

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 worked with people and their relatives to provide consistent and person-centred care. People’s needs were understood by staff. The provider told us they tried to ensure people had the same regular care staff to ensure continuity of care. People and relatives confirmed this.

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

The provider was able to support people with staff who shared their first langue. A relative told us this was very much valued as the person did not have English as their first language, telling us, “They [staff] speak the same language as my [relative].” Documentation was produced in English. The registered manager told us that family members supported the one person currently using the service who could not read English by translating information for 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.

The registered manager told us there had not been any complaints received in the past 12 months. People we spoke with told us they had not had to make a complaint but felt confident if they did so it would be acted upon. A relative said, “Oh for sure, 100%. [Registered manager] would definitely pick it up [a complaint].” The provider had a complaints procedure to provide guidance in this area. People were provided with their own copy of the procedure.

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

The registered manager told us they made referrals to health care professionals for people where needed, for example, to the district nursing and occupational therapy services. They added they had not had to support people to access healthcare appointments, but that this was something they could provide support with if required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The provider sought to ensure people had equity in experiences and outcomes. Care was person-centred so it was tailored around the needs of the individual. The provider met people’s needs around equality and diversity, for example, by preparing foods that reflected the person’s culture, in line with their wishes.

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.
Pre-care assessments had a section covering people’s end of life care wishes. For both people using the service this had been completed with information to the effect that the person did not want support from the provider in this area and that their family would be responsible for this. Neither person required end of life care at the time of inspection. The registered manager told us staff could provide support with this to people in future if required. There was an end of life policy in place to help guide practice in this area.