Vitality Plus Care 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 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment.

People gave mixed feedback about the person‑centred approach of the service. Some people told us they were supported by a consistent group of staff, which helped maintain continuity of care. However, others said their preferences regarding the gender of staff were not always respected. One comment included, “I have male and female, but I really only want female especially when it’s for personal care, I have told them this but nothing changes.“ Another comment included, “I now have 1 male and 1 female carer, this took some getting used to as I really wanted all female. I was told that it was not possible. I told them I wasn’t happy and I was told that as soon as it was possible I would just have female carers. This never happened so like everything I got used to it and now its fine.”

The registered manager explained that when two staff were required due to a person’s care needs, they aimed to ensure at least one staff member was of the preferred gender to deliver personal care, but operational pressures and staffing levels meant this was not always possible.

We also found one care plan where the person’s background and history had not been completed, limiting staff’s ability to deliver fully person‑centred support.

However, people and their relatives told us they were involved in their care planning. Daily records showed staff were taking an individual approach to meeting people’s needs.

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.

People told us the service contacted other professionals on their behalf when required. They also confirmed they had not experienced any missed visits.

Staff and managers described the range of external services they accessed to support people’s needs. We saw regular communication and referrals to partner agencies, including GPs, occupational therapists, and social workers.

Partner agencies told us the service generally worked well with them, although they noted responses were occasionally delayed.

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

People told us they had access to the service’s contact details including the registered manager. Individual communication needs were documented in care plans. For example, one care plan stated, “speak clearly, and provide patient reassurance.”

Staff described how they adapted their communication to meet people’s needs, such as writing information down or ensuring they maintained eye contact. Leaders also told us that people could access their documentation electronically if required.

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy in place, which they were following.

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.

People told us they knew how to raise a concern or complaint. One person commented, “Communication is very good with the office, I feel confident that if I had a problem, it would be sorted quickly for me.”

People said they felt comfortable raising concerns and when they had they were satisfied with the outcome. People also confirmed the provider gave them a copy of the complaints policy when they started support. Some people said they were not asked for regular feedback about their experiences of accessing the service. Although we saw evidence from the provider that feedback was being gained, this was not always consistent for everyone, based on their experiences.

The provider had a log of all complaints and concerns which outlined actions taken and outcomes. Evidence of lessons learned from complaints were documented in team meetings and staff confirmed these discussions took place.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People gave mixed feedback about the agreed timing of their visits. Some told us that visit times occasionally caused difficulties, resulting in delays in having their needs met. However, people did not report any harm had come to them, due to delayed visits. We reviewed visit‑time data for January and February 2026 and found that 9% of calls were 15 minutes later than planned. We also identified instances where one person’s visits were over 45 minutes late. The registered manager explained that delays sometimes occurred if staff were held up at previous visits or due to traffic issues. In these situations, the service attempted to contact people to inform them. People confirmed they were usually notified.

However, care plans included information about people’s accessibility needs, and we saw evidence of regular communication and referrals to external partners where additional support was 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, support and treatment in response to this.

People did not report any concerns about discrimination. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of treating everyone fairly.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training. Although the service was not supporting anyone with a learning disability or any autistic people at the time of the assessment, all staff had completed Tier 2 training in line with the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice. This is the government’s preferred and recommended training for health and social care staff working with people with a learning disability or autistic people.

We saw evidence the provider recognised when people’s needs had changed and made appropriate requests to the local authority to increase packages of care 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.

At the time of the inspection no one was being supported with end-of-life care. Staff demonstrated how they would support people at this time. One staff member commented, “We need to be supportive and respectful. Take care with manual handling as they might be in pain and it might hurt them and be sensitive to their needs.” Staff also received annual training on end-of-life care.

Care plans we reviewed identified people’s wishes about their future. Care plans also identified where people’s wishes for the future documents were kept. The provider had an end-of-life-audit tool which helped them review people’s care plans to ensure the information was up to date.