Hippo Care Limited

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 service since it was registered. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 71 (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 people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We found care plans were not always person centred.

Care plans had contradictory information. Which meant they were not always person centred. One person’s care plan was confusing to read. The person’s care plan was inconsistent throughout the document. Another person’s care plan referred to medicines which were no longer in use and could have caused confusion. The provider and registered manager told us “We confirm that the care plans shared are the most up-to-date versions available at the time of submission and reflect each person’s current assessed needs, agreed outcomes, risks, and commissioned tasks.” However, we found this was not always the case.
 

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 and registered manager used a computerised rostering system which allowed staff to be allocated to people for each call. We found the rostering was well managed.

People and their relatives told us they generally had the same staff supporting them. Comments included, “I have a direct line to the manager and they are fantastic. We asked for continuity, so they send us the same carer. They are very responsive”, “I have the same carer (unless they are on holiday) and [they] come on time” and “I see the same group of carers. They take it in turns. I get on well with them. All female carers. Only one male, came out initially to talk to me.”
 

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

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. We found the service had assessed people’s communication needs. The registered manager told us they were aware of AIS and were fully compliant. They told us they did this by “offering materials in alternative formats such as easy-read, large print, audio, or braille when needed” and “Engaging with communication professionals, such as British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters, speech and language therapists, and advocates where appropriate.”
 

People were supported by a service which had systems in place to ensure feedback was requested and gathered. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider carried out face to face reviews of people’s care, telephone reviews. Reviews were carried out at 6 weeks and 6 months to monitor quality of the support provided.

Staff consistently reported they recorded changes and reported them promptly to the office. This ensured people’s needs were consistently monitored and reviewed.
 

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

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

Staff told us, “I feel treated fairly, regardless of background, religion, or gender. I have never experienced discrimination. The service promotes inclusion by respecting different cultures”, “ensuring everyone has equal opportunities for training and support” and “I am treated fairly and respectfully regardless of my ethnicity, beliefs, or background”.
 

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.

Systems were in place to receive feedback and act on it. We found complaints had been received and responded to. One person told us, “If you have any queries, the office replies straight away. I haven’t had to make any major complaints, but if I mention anything, it gets rectified. I know who the manager is, but not personally.”
 

People were provided with opportunities to discuss and 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.