Mira Social Care

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

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 75 (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.

Care plans contained detailed, personalised information about peoples’ routines and how to support them. Staff used this information in practice, to ensure care was personalised.

Relatives described staff as “understanding” and said they supported people the way that suited them, reflecting personalised daily care. Even when people’s needs changed, the service ensured people were central to their care decisions. These consistent approaches meant people experienced care tailored to their preferences and daily routines.

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.

People were supported by the same staff at the same times each day, which promoted continuity.

Relatives said communication with the registered manager was regular and effective, including monthly updates and discussions about changes to care plans. This helped ensure care remained aligned with people’s needs and delivered in a coordinated way. A relative told us that consistency meant staff noticed when their family required more support and adjusted care appropriately. These arrangements supported stability, reliability and good day‑to‑day care.

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

Staff used calm explanations, reassurance and gentle prompts when people became confused, helping reduce distress and support understanding. Care plans detailed people’s communication preferences, including dementia‑related memory prompts, environmental cues and routines designed to minimise disorientation.

Staff followed these approaches consistently, ensuring people understood what was happening during care tasks and felt supported throughout each visit. The provider also offered an accessible service‑user guide and used a whiteboard to remind 1 person of upcoming appointments. Relatives said staff regularly updated them and were easy to talk to when changes occurred, helping keep everyone well‑informed and involved.

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.

Staff adjusted routines based on feedback from people and their families. Relatives said staff were responsive when concerns were raised and often made changes immediately.

Care plans clearly reflected family input regarding hazards, shopping routines and dementia‑related risks, showing involvement in planning and updates. Relatives told us they felt heard and that staff follow through with anything they asked. The provider also sought feedback routinely, and complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately. These arrangements meant people remained actively involved in their care and were confident their views influenced changes.

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

People received care that was adjusted to their needs, including changes to care packages when support requirements increased. Relatives said staff generally arrived on time and completed the hours people were funded for.

A relative described an occasion when a care worker was delayed due to public transport issues and contacted them proactively, which they appreciated. This showed the provider communicated openly and helped maintain safe and reliable access to care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People received consistent care from staff who understood their needs and delivered support in a respectful and inclusive way. Staff recognised and responded to people’s beliefs, culture and identity, creating a safe environment where everyone felt valued.

Staff listened to people and used their feedback to tailor care. Care plans were clear and inclusive, showing how people and relatives were involved in decision‑making. Staff were trained in equality and human rights, helping ensure people received appropriate support and reducing the likelihood of disparities in experience or outcomes.

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 and their families were actively involved in discussions about changing needs, and the service adapted support to ensure care remained appropriate.

A relative told us that when their family member became unwell, they met with the registered manager to review what additional support was needed and the care plan was updated; when the person recovered, the support was reduced again. This showed flexible, responsive planning and ongoing involvement in decisions about future care.