Homecare With Caring Angels 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 that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered 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.

People told us their care was individual and tailored to their needs. A relative told us, “They show absolute respect towards her, and it is so nice to hear her laughing with her carer. She is a Methodist and does not drink alcohol and they appreciate her Christian values. They are all so kind to her”.

There were systems in place to ensure people were involved with the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their care, this meant people were at the centre of this.

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 registered manager told us how they tried to ensure the same staff supported people to ensure they received consistent care of people. People confirmed this to us. One person said, “I have regular carers who are all female and know me well.” A relative told us, “She has regular carers, and they are lovely towards her”.

The registered manager told us there were systems in place to monitor and review care. This included reviewing the live rota to ensure consistent care was delivered.

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

Assessments considered people’s preferred methods of communication and care plans reflected the levels of support, and the ways people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. Information was provided to people in a format they could understand when needed.

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.

People felt listened to and involved with their care and knew how to complain. One person said, “I have never had to complain but would know how to if necessary and I feel they would respond very quickly.” A relative told us, “We know how to contact the office with any issues, and we have every confidence that they will be resolved quickly and in a professional way.”

The provider got regular feedback from people, and they confirmed this to us, however improvements were needed to ensure this was always documented.

No complaints had been received however there was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the providers own policy and procedure.

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

Although no concerns had been identified, the registered manager was aware of action they needed to take if concerns arose.

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.

The registered manager was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and were able to tell us the action they would take if concerns arose.

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.

The registered manager confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they were aware of action to take if needed and as part of their assessment process had considered people’s thoughts and preferences.