Light Care Services Limited Hampshire

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 not been fully assessed, therefore an overall rating for this key question cannot be given.

We reviewed 2 quality statements for this key question. The provider did not have systems in place for an inclusive culture built on listening and involving people. People and relatives were not supported to raise concerns or complaints or encouraged to feedback any areas for improvements. When concerns or complaints were raised, or feedback given these were not always investigated or acted upon.

Processes in place did not support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

This service scored 7 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

People and relatives were not supported to raise concerns or complaints or encouraged to feedback any areas for improvements. We received numerous comments from people and relatives in relation to difficulties in contacting the office, lack of response by the leadership team in relation to concerns and ongoing poor communication. Comments included, “I do have phone numbers of the office, but they don’t respond as the voicemail box is always full”, “The manager has never been out to discuss anything with us”, “I have asked to have access to his care logs and this has never happened”, “The office are always in a hurry, and they don’t listen to you” and “Complaints and serious incidents are not investigated.”

Additionally, we received mixed feedback from people and relatives about their involvement with their care. Comments included, “We have not received any surveys from the company to feedback on care provision”, “There have been no reviews of [persons] care, and I have not been asked to give any feedback”, “The manager does not come out to see us and review my husband’s care”, “After my input and advising the carers how Dad likes things done ,they now provide a very good service” and “I have never received a feedback form the office.”

The leadership team told us surveys had been sent out to people who use the service, but to their knowledge none had been returned. They were not able to provide us on any evidence of this. The leadership team told us they supported people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, this process was not formalised. They were not able to provide us any evidence of this. A member of the leadership team told us complaints were shared with the team via WhatsApp messaging. They were not able to provide us any evidence of this.

The provider did not have systems in place for an inclusive culture built on listening and involving people. Although there was a complaints policy in place this was not followed. When concerns or complaints were raised, or feedback given these were not always investigated or acted upon. There was no evidence detailed investigations had been completed, and it was not clear how the complaint had been assessed and dealt with or what actions had been taken to address the issues raised. Furthermore, details within the complaints log did not consistently show that the service took complaints seriously. For example, in one complaint log the resolved section read, “Information given by son was not accurate.”

Although the leadership team told us systems were in place for gathering feedback from people, sharing concerns with staff and involving people in care reviews they were unable to provide detailed evidence that these processes were completed and embedded into practice.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

People and relatives did not raise concerns in relation to experiencing inequality in experience or outcomes. However, from people’s feedback to us we could not be assured people were provided with care tailored to their individual needs, views and wishes.

The leadership team told us people who are most likely to experience inequality were supported and care would be tailored for their needs. However, they were unable to provide evidence of this.

The processes in place did not support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Care plans and risk assessments lacked detail and information in relation to optimising outcomes for people, including consideration of protected characteristics, such as gender or disability. Care plans were not robustly reviewed therefore we could not be assured the information was used to provide equity outcomes and experiences for people.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.