Basingstoke

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 good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. They said staff provided personal care to a good standard and took the time needed to ensure care was delivered properly. They said that staff understood their preferred routines around personal care and care complimented their everyday lives.

Care plans recorded people’s preferred routines and instructions on how staff should support them in ways that helped them feel comfortable. They also included information about people’s lives, family backgrounds, cultural beliefs and those important to them. Staff had developed positive relationships with people and understood how they wished to manage their daily lives.

The service arranged care in line with commissioned or agreed hours. Care plans set out key tasks for staff to complete at each visit, which helped ensure people received support that met their needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people. However, needed to make improvements to ensure consistency in staffing arrangements and care call timings.

People told us improvements were needed to the consistency of call times and continuity of staff. They said visit times and staff frequently changed, sometimes without prior notice, which they found disruptive and frustrating. People told us they had raised these concerns with the provider and, although some improvements had been made, care remained inconsistent at times.

The registered manager was aware of this feedback and was taking action to improve the consistency of scheduling. This work was ongoing at the time of the inspection. For example, they had written to people to clearly explain and manage expectations about care call times and worked to ensure time specific visits were prioritised and delivered as required. The provider had clear criteria to identify time‑critical visits. We reviewed records for people assessed as needing these visits and found the provider scheduled and delivered care in line with assessed needs. This helped to promote shared expectations and understanding around how care was planned and delivered.

The provider had systems to monitor the length of care visits. This helped leaders assess whether current care arrangements met people’s needs. Where staff identified that support levels required adjustment, the provider worked with the local authority to review and amend care packages accordingly.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information to people about how their care visits were organised.

People told us they were not always informed about changes to their care. Although the provider issued schedules of planned visits, people said these often changed, including visit times and allocated staff. They told us they were not always notified of changes, which they found frustrating, particularly when waiting for staff to arrive.

The registered manager recognised communication about changes to care as an area for improvement following recent feedback from quality assurance questionnaires. They reviewed the reasons for changes, which included short‑notice staff sickness, delays at earlier visits and traffic.

The registered manager explained that informing people about changes was sometimes affected by the time required to reconfigure rotas. They had reviewed out‑of‑hours procedures and met with senior staff to improve how changes to care were communicated in a timely way. They had taken additional actions to reduce the impact of short notice unplanned changes. These included ensuring senior staff responded promptly, by sourcing alternative staff or completing visits themselves when required. The registered manager told us their expectation was that people received confirmation of changes via telephone call or email, which would help ensure they were kept informed of amendments to their care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. The provider involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy that set out how concerns were handled. The registered manager demonstrated they listened to feedback and took action to address concerns. People told us the provider responded appropriately when issues were raised. For example, 1 person said the registered manager investigated and resolved a concern they raised about a staff member.

Complaint records reflected the provider followed their policy and investigated concerns appropriately. The registered manager also completed reflective reviews of complaints to identify learning and improve practice. For example, they identified in January 2026 that systems around communicating key messages about people’s needs could be improved. They had taken steps to ensure all correspondence with people, professionals and staff was logged on their electronic system. This helped to ensure all correspondence was evidenced.

The provider gathered feedback through quality assurance questionnaires sent to people and relatives. Responses to the most recent questionnaire were positive about staff and the quality of care. Feedback also highlighted areas for improvement, including care call consistency and communication about changes. The registered manager had taken action to begin to address these concerns.

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

People did not raise any concerns around suffering discrimination in relation to equity in access. Staff received equality and diversity training and had a good understanding of how to ensure people were treated fairly. One staff member said, “I avoid stereotyping people and treat everyone as unique.”

People did not raise any concerns around suffering discrimination in relation to equity in experience or outcomes.

People’s care plans included details around people’s protected characteristics and how to ensure care was not a barrier to people receiving fair treatment.

No one at the service was receiving end‑of‑life care at the time of our inspection. However, the provider had supported people at the end of their lives previously. In these situations, senior staff engaged with people to understand their preferences and choices for future care. This included discussions about wishes and arrangements should end‑of‑life care be required. The provider had developed care planning templates to help explore and record people’s advance wishes.