Shores Homecare 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.

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 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 plans were written in a person-centred manner and daily notes contained detailed information about how people were supported in a personalised way. Staff described how they focused on people as individuals. A staff member said, “I think the care plans are pretty thorough. I enjoy interacting with [people].” Another told us, “The best thing are the [people]. They rely on us because sometimes they don’t see people.” A relative confirmed, “They (staff) know [name of person] very well.”

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 were very complimentary about the care they received. The service worked flexibly to support people’s fluctuating needs. One person described how the service altered the level of care provided so they were able to live as independently as possible. The service encouraged people to engage in the social activities they also provided. The were able to offer people support to access these, such as transport, and worked with reablement services to support people’s transition and integration back into the community.

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

The service understood and met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. People, and their relatives where appropriate, were able to access records in a variety of ways, to suit their communication needs.

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 were very comfortable to provide feedback about the service and felt staff and managers would respond appropriately. The service undertook regular surveys to check people were happy with the service and seek ways to improve. The service planned to review how surveys were carried out to encourage more people to respond.

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

People were able to access their care in a way which worked for them. There were no barriers to people accessing care and support.

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 received good care and outcomes without any discrimination.

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’s preferences and wishes for their future care were understood and respected. People were supported at the end of their life in the way they wanted.