Rolling Hearts 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.

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.

Care records showed staff planned and delivered care around what mattered to each person. Care plans clearly described individual needs, preferences, routines, and goals, enabling staff to provide consistent, personalised support.

Staff explained they used care plans to tailor care and respond to changes in people’s needs. They described adapting support based on people’s preferences and reviewing care when circumstances changed. This helped ensure care remained responsive and person‑centred.

Relatives said staff understood their family member well and provided care in line with their wishes. They felt involved in discussions about care and said staff listened to their views when care plans were reviewed.

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. Care plans reflected the support people received from relatives and other services. Staff clearly understood shared roles and responsibilities, which supported coordinated care and reduced the risk of gaps or duplication.

Staff training and induction supported effective care delivery. Records showed staff received role‑appropriate and condition‑specific training, and new staff were supported to understand people’s needs and how to work alongside families and health and social care professionals. This helped ensure consistent and informed care.

Rotas supported continuity of care. People were supported by a small, consistent staff team, which helped build trusting relationships and improved staff understanding of people’s preferences and routines.

The provider communicated effectively with relatives, care workers and commissioners. Records showed clear processes to monitor delivered hours, review funding, and respond to changing needs. This ensured care remained flexible, joined‑up, and responsive over time.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and relatives received information in formats that met their needs, including easy‑read and alternative formats. Care plans clearly recorded communication needs, helping staff provide information people could understand.

The Service User Guide gave clear, transparent information about services, complaints, equality, and costs. This supported informed decision‑making before and during care.

Staff received training on communication needs and information governance. Records showed information was shared on a need‑to‑know basis and people’s wishes about sharing were respected, supporting trust and choice.

The provider had clear policies aligned with best‑practice guidance, including the Accessible Information Standard and Data Protection. These supported staff to meet people’s communication needs while handling information lawfully and confidentially.

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. Relatives confirmed this.

Relatives described feeling able to raise concerns and confident they would be listened to. Records showed a clear system to log concerns, record actions taken, and provide feedback, supporting timely and proportionate responses.

The provider had an up‑to‑date complaints policy that clearly explained how to raise concerns and what to expect. Managers investigated concerns in line with the policy, with records showing thorough reviews focused on understanding issues and improving practice.

Staff involved people and relatives through regular, day‑to‑day communication. Records showed staff shared updates and explained changes to care, helping people feel informed and involved in decisions that affected them.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider supported fair access to care. The registered manager explained that decisions about accepting and continuing care were based on people’s needs and the service’s ability to meet them safely. This helped ensure access was not restricted by background or funding source.

Care records showed the service supported people with a range of needs. The registered manager described making reasonable adjustments, such as flexible visit times and working with families to reduce barriers to access.

They described clear processes to prioritise care during periods of disruption. Business continuity arrangements ensured people with the highest needs continued to receive support first, helping maintain equitable access.

Records showed the provider communicated with people and relatives, and commissioners when needs or funding changed. This supported timely reviews and helped ensure people continued to receive appropriate and fair access to care.

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 actively considered how people’s individual circumstances may affect their experience of care. Care plans recorded people’s protected characteristics, communication needs, and personal circumstances, helping staff tailor care and reduce the risk of unequal experiences.

Care records showed staff made reasonable adjustments to support people’s needs. These included adapting communication, routines, and support approaches to help people achieve similar outcomes. This helped ensure people received care that was fair and appropriate to them.

Staff used ongoing monitoring to identify differences in experience or outcomes. Records showed managers reviewed care and responded when people’s needs changed. This prevented disadvantage and promoted consistent outcomes.

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.

Care plans showed staff discussed future wishes with people and involved relatives and professionals where appropriate. Care records showed advance care planning was considered and recorded when people wished to engage. Where people chose not to plan, staff documented and respected this decision.

The service worked proactively with the commissioning body to ensure a person continued to receive appropriate end‑of‑life care as their needs changed. Records showed the registered manager contacted a commissioning body to seek guidance and agreement on delivering flexible care hours within the funded package.

As the person’s condition deteriorated, the service adapted care schedules flexibly within the agreed hours and sought commissioner approval for this approach. Early engagement with the commissioner ensured timely, responsive care that maintained comfort, dignity, and continuity at the end of life.