Home Instead Leigh

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 since the office location changed and the service was re-registered. 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. One person told us, “I’ve seen my care plan. They update it every 6 months or so. There is a breakdown in there of everything they do for me. One of the women comes and sees me when it’s updated.”

Staff understood what person centred care was and how this should be provided. One staff member told us, “Providing person centred care is ensuring that the client is at the heart of the care. Being sure to prioritise the individual’s needs, preferences and values. Encouraging the client to have an active part in decision making.”

Care plans were detailed with some good person centred information contained within them, which would help staff to understand people as individuals. This included information about people’s background, likes, dislikes and what or who was important to them. People’s chosen daily routines were clearly recorded, to enable staff to meet people’s needs in the way they wanted.

We did note some minor issues in care plans reviewed. In one person’s dietary section, there was reference to support with ‘feeding’, which is not the appropriate terminology. The provider agreed to discuss the correct use of language with those staff responsible for completing care plans.

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.

When people commenced the service they received an initial call within 24 hours to discuss, to ensure everything had gone okay with the first visit. The service utilised a staff matching service, to try and ensure people were supported by staff they would get on with or had things in common with. An in person review was held after 2 weeks, to discuss the care package and see if any changes were required. This included checking whether the care staff matching process had worked.

The provider and staff worked well with healthcare professionals, and others involved in people’s care, to ensure people received continuity of care from everyone involved. This included where people had support from other care companies or received visits from district nurses or therapists.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and recorded in their care plans and shared with staff to ensure these needs would be met. Staff understood people’s communication needs and provided information in a way people could understand. The provider confirmed information was available in different languages, font sizes and could also be sourced in other mediums, to meet people’s individual needs. For some people with specific communication needs, due to impairment or disability, the provider had sought support to ensure effective communication could be achieved, for example someone who could communicate via British Sign Language.

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 and relatives confirmed the provider sought their views and opinions about the care and support provided. One relative stated, “Oh yes, they do this. [Staff member] has been in regular contact to see how mum is and if everything is going okay.”

We noted a number of ways in which people’s views were sought. This included an annual survey, and 3 monthly quality assurance calls, albeit records of these calls were not always located in people’s care records.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure which was included in the service user guide. Although when asked people and relatives could not recall the formal procedure, they all stated they would happily speak to individual carers or ring the office if they had any concerns. Where concerns had been raised, we were told these had been addressed quickly. Comments included, “I don’t know the actual procedure, but in the first instance I would call the office or send them an email. However, I’ve never had to, they are an exceptional company” and “There was a carer who was quite pushy with [relative], telling her what to do. I raised this with the office and they didn’t allow them to work with [relative] again. They worked really fast to get another carer.”

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

People received care and support at the times of their choosing. We reviewed call monitoring data for 4 people and noted care visits were completed in line with the agreed times, as stated in their care plans.

The provider used an electronic care planning system. People and relatives could access their care plan via an application they could download on their mobile phone or other electronic device. Where people did not have access to electronic devices, they were provided with a paper copy of their care plan and any other associated records.

The provider operated an out of hours and on call facility, to ensure management support was available throughout the week.

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.

Staff understood people’s right to receive care and support that met their individual needs. One staff member told us they did this, “By reading their care plan and listening to the clients themselves, gaining their trust and building rapport.” Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights to help promote inclusivity. Spot checks ensured staff understood their responsibilities to always ensure people were treated fairly and equally.

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.

Although the service was not actively supporting anyone with palliative care at the time of the assessment, processes were in place to gather information about people’s individual needs and wishes regarding the support they wanted to receive at the end of their life. Where people wished to remain at home, the provider worked with other professional and organisations to ensure people’s wishes could be met.