Acorn Care Solutions 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 the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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. However, their care plans did not always contain consistent information about how staff should support them. For example, 1 person’s care plan detailed conflicting information about the moving and handling equipment used. Care plans also had older information alongside current information, which made it difficult to understand which information was relevant.

However, care plans did include information about people’s preferred routines and instructions for staff to follow. People’s care plans also included details around their life, family background and cultural beliefs.

People told us the care they received reflected their needs. They told us they were engaged in planning and reviewing their care and had a care plan in place.

Staff told us information about people’s needs was accessible via the electronic care planning system. This helped to ensure they were providing the care needed.

People told us they were not always informed about changes to their care. This included changes to the timing of their care calls or the staff allocated. They gave examples where staff either did not arrive at planned times or arrived at care calls that people had previously cancelled. Comments included, “(Care call) times get changed and we are not always notified about it” and “I tell the office I’m at the hospital, but carers still turn up and find it a bit frustrating” and “I’m told the carer is coming to me and then wait and they don’t turn up. When I question why and they say they didn’t put it in their diary.”

Some people had requested different call times to fit around their daily routines. They said they had requested changes but calls times had not yet changed. Comments included, “The problems with timings of visits are at the beginning and end of the day, this is an ongoing issue.”

Most people told us they received consistent teams of staff. However, we received feedback that when regular staff were absent, relief staff were not as familiar with their needs or motivated in their role. This reflected the feedback the provider had received from their own internal quality assurance. The registered manager had addressed these issues by providing staff with more support and training to improve their knowledge around people’s needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People told us the provider did not always give people up to date information about their care. This included information around care call times or staff attending. Comments included, “I never know when they (staff) are turning up and they turn up at all different times” and “I have lots of different people (staff) and never know who comes.”

The provider was taking steps to address communication issues. The provider planned to permit people access to new care planning system. This would enable them to view planned care call times, review care notes and send messages to the office electronically. These actions would help to ensure people received the information about their care they needed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider had a complaints policy which detailed how complaints would be overseen appropriately. People told us they felt able to raise any issues or complaints and their concerns were taken seriously by senior staff.

The provider sent out quality assurance questionnaires to people and relatives to gain feedback about the service. The last questionnaire was sent in May 2025. They had received a 75% response, the majority of which were positive about the quality of care they received. The provider had received feedback that communication and staffing needed to improve. This was reflective of the feedback we received from people as part of this inspection.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People confirmed they were supported to access health and medical services as needed. Whether this was with the support of staff or by organising care calls around appointments. Staff received training in equality and diversity. They had a good understanding of how to help ensure people had access to the services they required.

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.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s personal backgrounds, wishes and what was important to them. People’s care plans included details around protected characteristics and how to help ensure people received fair treatment.

The registered manager told us they were not currently supporting anyone with end-of-life care. However, there was no clear process in place to approach conversations about people’s future wishes or document these in care plans. The registered manager told us not all staff felt comfortable engaging in conversations about end-of-life care; therefore, the assessment of people’s future care preferences was not always explored. The registered manager told us they planned to develop an approach to ensure they could meet people’s needs if they needed care towards the end of their life.