Hearts of Care Agency

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 Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Records did not consistently reflect the person-centred care provided or clearly document people’s involvement, needs and preferences. Daily notes focused mainly on completed tasks, creating a risk of care becoming task-led rather than holistic and tailored. Since the last inspection, the provider had introduced a new electronic system to improve the recording of care and risks. The provider accepted our feedback and recognised more detail was needed to evidence a person-centred approach.

Feedback from the person we spoke with indicated their care was person-centred. They said staff knew them well, respected their routines and adapted visits around appointments and community activities.

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 management team aimed to provide continuity of care by planning staff rotas, so people were supported by a familiar, consistent team. To achieve this, they on occasion delivered care visits themselves and were on call in an emergency.

People benefited from flexible care arrangements that kept their routines consistent and respected their choices.

The provider gave people accurate, up-to-date information in formats suited to their individual needs.

Care records described people’s communication needs. Relevant information was shared with healthcare professionals to support continuity and prompt responses to changes in health or wellbeing. The management team also provided information in alternative languages to help people understand it.

The provider enabled people to give feedback, suggest improvements and raise concerns or complaints. People were involved in decisions about their care and informed of changes made in response.

The person we spoke with understood the complaints procedure and felt confident contacting management if needed. They said, “I am asked often if I am happy with [care arrangements], does anything need to change. There were some adjustments needed at the start. But that is to be expected as we got used to each other. I prefer a male carer and they acted on this. I know who to speak to if I was unhappy but never had to. I am happy with the agency.”

Records reviewed showed the management team used feedback to inform care planning. Surveys, telephone monitoring and home visits were used to gather views from people and their families. The records sampled showed feedback was acted on promptly, and the person we spoke with felt their preferences influenced how care was delivered.

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

The management team worked with health and social care partners to address barriers to care. Where applicable care plans included clear guidance on the safe use of mobility equipment, and support arrangements were adapted with the local authority and healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed.

Staff and managers listened to people at greater risk of unequal experiences or outcomes and adapted their care and support accordingly.

The management team and staff promoted equitable outcomes by recognising people’s different needs, circumstances and protected characteristics. Care was tailored to support people’s safety, wellbeing and independence.

Initial and ongoing assessments identified people’s individual needs, which were reflected in care plans. For example, a person’s plan recorded mobility goals, and visit times were arranged to support gym attendance. When needs changed, care was adapted to maintain tailored support and equal opportunities.

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 ReSPECT forms to show their care wishes in an emergency. The ReSPECT process creates personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care and treatment in a future emergency in which they are unable to make or express choices. These forms were kept in their folders at home and in the main office so staff could find them quickly if needed.

No one using the service needed end-of-life care when we visited. However, the management team explained if someone did need it, they would work closely with healthcare professionals and the local hospice team.