Tamworth Home Care Limited

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives. Some people told us; their care calls were undertaken by many staff who often did not fully understand their needs. Comments included “We want regular carers, we don’t get that,” and “About 2 to 3 months ago we had around 22 carers coming. That’s not good for me.” While those people supported by consistent staff were happy and felt their care was more person centred.

The manager told us they were currently reviewing the care runs with the aim of improving the consistency of staff. Some people spoken with confirmed this, 1 person told us, “It’s a lot better than it was, in general the consistency of carers is much improved from the last 12 months.”

Care records were person centred and included people’s individual needs, preferences and routines and were accessible to all staff.

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 provider reviewed local healthcare needs to help them develop the service based on what people wanted and what was available. People were supported to obtain help from health and social care professionals and referred to specialist health teams where appropriate.

Feedback provided by commissioners, from local authorities working with the service, was of an improving service and where improvements were identified, actions were taken to make sure people continued to receive the right levels of care.

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

Staff told us people’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, information was available in easy read formats, that people were supported to access and understand.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Most people and relatives spoken with felt communication needed to improve. As, there had been several changes to the management team recently which people were not informed of, people also shared it was often difficult to contact the service outside of office hours.

People knew how to raise concerns about the service. Some relatives were satisfied with how their concerns were handled while others did not feel their concerns had been resolved. Most of these concerns were around consistency of staff and lateness of care calls.

People and relatives had opportunities to offer suggestions and give feedback about the service through annual surveys. The manager told us these were analysed and used to identify areas for improvement.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The management team understood how to access specialist support should this be required and had developed links with the local health and social care teams.

From records reviewed, it was clear staff sought support from healthcare professionals when needed. In some cases, care or office staff arranged medical appointments and checked with pharmacies when people’s medicines stocks were running low. District nurses were involved in people’s support.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Improvement was needed to ensure all people consistently received a good quality service supported by staff who knew them and fully understood their support needs. While people and relatives spoken with felt safe, many told us the inconsistency of their staff was detrimental to them receiving good care.

People who were supported by consistent staff spoke positively about the service they received. Comments included “The carers are very good,” and “I’m very happy with the carers. They are gentle and good.”

People had access to appointments with health and social care professionals when needed. Staff undertook training to promote their understanding of equity and diversity.

People were not always 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.

Care records did not record if people had chosen to share or not to share their decisions and wishes about their future, including at the end of their life. This is important to ensure staff support people in line with their wishes, in a dignified way.