Ultimate Homecare 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 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 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.

One relative told us the support their family member received was responsive to how they presented each day. They commented, “It’s not ever rushed, [staff] give [Name] time to come round and take it at their pace.” Another relative said, “It is very much led by what [Name] wants and what they fancy doing and what they don’t fancy doing.”

People were encouraged to share what was important in their daily routines so their care and support could be planned accordingly. Information about people’s wants, routines and preferences were included in their care plans. Staff used this information to provide care that was centred around people’s individual wishes. One staff member explained, “Some clients feel happier if they know you are going in and already know what they like. It is building that relationship and having that understanding."

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.

With people’s consent, the registered manager shared information with other health and social care professionals to ensure integrated and well-co-ordinated care and continuity of information.

People received consistency in the team of staff supporting them which enabled small changes in their wellbeing to be promptly identified. One relative told us, “Yes, it is absolutely consistent. [Name’s] not very good with change and that’s why it works so well I think.”

Where people were supported by family members, staff worked alongside and in collaboration with them to ensure a joined-up approach.

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

People’s preferred methods of communication were identified during their initial assessment. This included consideration of any disabilities or impairments that may affect how people gave or received information. This information was recorded in people’s care plans, together with any aids to support communication.

The provider was able to provide documents in a variety of formats. This included easy-to-complete forms and large-print versions, helping to make information clearer and more inclusive.

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 and their families were involved in decisions about their care and support. One relative told us, “I make sure they involve [Name] as much as possible. [Name] has their own meetings, and they participate fully in them. If I believe something has been missed, or I need to say anything, I will speak to them (staff).” People had a copy of their care plan and risk assessments so they could be reassured they had been listened to and the care they received reflected their wishes and requirements.

People were informed of the process for raising any concerns or complaints when they started using the service. One relative told us they had not had cause to raise a complaint but commented, “I’ve got a good relationship with the registered manager so would speak to them directly, and yes, I would feel very comfortable raising it.” Another relative told us when they had raised a concern, “They (registered manager) were very professional and took our concerns on board.” A staff member told us they would assist people to escalate any concerns they or their relatives shared with them.

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

Where needed, staff helped people access the right support at the right time to ensure they had the healthcare they needed. One relative told us how staff had responded immediately to request emergency healthcare support when their family member was acutely unwell.

The registered manager was available 24 hours a day to provide guidance and support in an emergency.

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.

A relative told us staff were advocates for people with protected characteristics. They told us, “They (staff) advocate for the fact that although [Name] is not physically able, they know what they want and can say what they want. They (staff) did this at a recent hospital visit.”

Staff described a culture where people’s individuality and preferences were promoted to ensure equitable experiences and outcomes. The registered manager explained, “People are not a number, they are a person and their illness comes second. They are who they are and the result of what they have achieved in life." A staff member told us, “It doesn’t matter what health issue you have; we are all entitled to be treated the same and not any differently. I don’t like the word disability, because it should not define you as a person."

Where appropriate, relatives were encouraged to advocate on behalf of people to support positive outcomes.

People were not consistently 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.

One relative told us how the registered manager had supported their family member to plan for a temporary but significant change in their life. They described the service as being, “Reactive and supportive.”

At the time of our inspection, no one was in receipt of end-of-life care. The registered manager explained if a person required end-of-life support, a specific care plan would be created to explore the person’s wishes and priorities. Where people had a ‘ReSPECT’ form detailing their personalised recommendations for clinical care and treatment, this was recorded. However, there was no evidence people had been supported to discuss advance care planning or their preferences for their end-of-life care.

Care plans contained information about people's significant relationships and who they wanted to be contacted if they were unwell or in the event of an emergency.