Home Instead Bradford

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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’s care was planned in an individualised way and regularly reviewed. Care plans detailed people’s preferences and backgrounds to enable staff to support them in a personalised way. Relatives felt informed about care provision and felt the service was responsive. For example, a relative said, “[Name] had some dry skin, [staff member name] told us about it and recommended cream and a referral to the doctor.”

Although people were happy with the care, some people told us they had not seen their care plan. A person said, “I personally haven’t seen the care plan but it’s on the staff’s phone. I personally don’t have a copy, but I don’t think I need it. I’ve never been asked if I would like one. My son might have it.” Another person said, “No I don’t have a care plan.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Referrals had been made to other healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs. Staff explained how they escalated concerns to the service management where they felt the need was identified. For example, the registered manager said, “We have a person who has lost weight recently. Family and the general practitioner [GP] were concerned. The GP referred the person to the dietician and advised family to buy nutritious food. [Name] had lost a stone and has now gained a quarter of a stone back. Staff make [Name] fresh food and encourage them to eat.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. This information was discussed when people first started using the service and detailed within the care plan and risk assessments. For example, 1 person who was registered blind received their care plan in large print to ensure accessibility. If someone required information in another language or in braille, the service could provide this.

The service 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 service had a complaints policy in place; however, the registered manager told us no formal complaints had been received. There were systems and processes for people and their relatives to allow them to feedback information personal to them.A relative said, “Some staff [Name] is not a favourite of, and they have made changes for us and given us the staff member we wanted as much as possible which has been good. Any issues raised they have dealt with.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence healthcare appointments were arranged promptly and appropriately for everyone using the service. The service collaborated closely with health and social care professionals to ensure individuals could access the necessary support, equipment, and services without delay. For example, 1 person was assisted in obtaining essential equipment to help them with their mobility.

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 equitable care that was inclusive, fair, and respectful. Staff training had included equality, diversity, and human rights, and staff practice was checked through regular spot checks, supervisions, and ongoing support.

Staff reported feeling confident in delivering care that was inclusive, respectful, and person-centred. A staff member explained, “It’s about focusing on the individual, ensuring their wishes and preferences come first. Even with professional knowledge, you don’t always know what’s best. If someone chooses to take a risk, they have the right to do so and maintain their autonomy.”

People were not always 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 did not contain any information about people’s future life changes, including planning for end-of-life care. This was discussed with the service who told us they were planning to implement these.