Angels Domiciliary Care Limited Also known as Angels South East London

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 told us they had access to their care plans and could see when staff had updated their care notes. Relatives told us they were involved in the planning and regularly reviews of plans. We received comments as, “I was involved in [person’s] care plan, and it is followed as it should be. It is in an easy-to-follow format at the moment, it does not need to be changed at all.” and “Yes, I helped with [person’s] care plan. It is constantly looked at and the [staff] leave notes all the time for each other, so they know what is going on.” This showed staff were constantly well informed to deliver person centred care to people.

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 received the full care and support according to their care plans. People told us they thought the service was flexible enough to support them with their changing care needs. A relative told us, “We have flexible visit times, and this is an agreement with us and the [registered] manager. I do know without their support I would not be able to have [person] still living at home.” The provider worked well with people and their relatives to ensure continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had an accessible information standard policy which set out the standard expected to support people with additional communication needs. One relative told us, “I have access to [person’s] care plan, it is in an easy-to-follow format and at the moment does not need to be changed.” Care plans documented additional communication needs, and the service ensured information distributed to people was done so in a format that was accessible to 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 people were contacted regularly to for their feedback on care, and people confirmed this happened. One person told us, “The [registered manager] comes out to meet us monthly and we talk through everything. I am very happy with them; they are easy to talk to.” People told us they would contact the office if they had a concern, or a complaint and they were confident concerns would be taken seriously. The service had a system where complaints and concerns were logged. These were reviewed and discussed at meetings to find solutions and best ways forwards. Staff told us they felt they were involved with the running of the service, and that their views and ideas were taken seriously.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Support was delivered in a timely manner. The service used an electronic call monitoring system, so the office could monitor if staff attended care visits, and if the visits were attended on time. Staff would receive a phone call if a visit was not recorded as beginning when scheduled to ensure people were not kept waiting. There was a further monitoring system in place to back up the initial electronic call monitoring, further reducing the risk of people experiencing missed appointments. People told us staff always stayed for the full duration of time allocated to them.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People told us they did not have concerns about discrimination in the service, and were confident if it did occur the management team would deal with the concern quickly. Staff had received training in equality and diversity. They knew people well enough to understand their equality related needs to ensure appropriate care was provided.

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 in the process of transitioning to another service. The service had an advanced care policy in place, and people could document their advanced care needs in their care plans if they wished to do so. At the time of the inspection, no one using the service was receiving end of life care.