Marina Homecare Ltd T/A Visiting Angels Barnet and Enfield Also known as Visiting Angels Barnet and Enfield

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 theprovidermet people’s needs.

This is the firstassessmentfor 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 a care experience which met their needs and wishes. People received care visits at times they had agreed from a regular group of staff who they knew. The management maintained a close operational input to understand people’s needs and to ensure the service delivered a person-centred care experience. They captured information about people lives, to help foster good working relationships with people and staff.

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 registered manager was actively involved in joining up the right professionals for one person who had complex needs and was in a challenging situation. They talked us through the barriers they were faced with and how they had tried to overcome them, so they could help this person to get the right outcome for them and their informal carers.

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

People received information about how to make a complaint as part of an information pack when they joined. Relatives could access certain information about their relatives’ care if they sought permission to do so. People’s communication needs were explored in their assessment, so staff could engage with them effectively.

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.

People were contacted over the phone to review their care experience, and they also had face to face reviews. The provider also sent out yearly questionnaires which they used to review the delivery of care. A culture had developed where people and relatives felt confident to call the office to raise issues or make changes to their care schedules.

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

Most people had relatives who were involved in their loved ones’ day-to-day needs, who had made it clear this was part of their role. But staff were aware they needed to share health concerns with people or their nominated relative. Staff were also prepared to intervene, if they needed to.

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.

We found management were actively involved in the management of people’s care needs. Staff were sensible and experienced to know when they needed to seek the input from others. Sometimes care planning was limited in directing staff to do this, which we fed back to the registered manager and provider, who said they would correct this issue. But in practice we were satisfied this was happening.

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.

People had plans in place which had considered the end of their lives, including where they wanted to be and who they wanted to be with. Most people’s relatives were on hand and wanted to take the lead on managing this part of people’s lives. The plans were clear what the role of staff was at this time.