Kate's Home Nursing

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Staff undertook comprehensive assessments of patient needs and preferences and shared these with other staff involved in providing care. Patients who used Kate’s Home Nursing preferred to be cared for at home in their last weeks, days or hours of their life. Staff provided care rapidly when patients were in hospital but wanted to be cared for at home. Coordinators were available 24 hours a day and provided immediate assessment of needs. Staff supported patients in the home at very short notice to allow patients to return home quickly. Patient choice was always respected, and staff used a process of dynamic risk assessment to provide care safely whilst respecting patients’ wishes.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 service worked in partnership with other agencies to understand the diverse health and care needs. The commissioning services met with managers to arrange funding for patients who required hospice care. GPs and community health professionals spoke directly with patients to understand patient needs and shared this with Kate’s Home Nursing. Managers attended meetings with a range of professionals including other hospice services, to understand what patients wanted and how they could provide care to meet patient needs and choice.

Managers arranged the service to respond to patients’ needs in a timely way. Staff worked flexibly to meet patients’ needs. A reduction in patient numbers using Kate’s Home Nursing service over the previous 2 years, had prompted managers to pursue the idea of providing shared care with another hospice. This meant Kate’s Home Nursing staff provided care for patients at night while the partner hospice provided care during daytime hours. This has increased the demand for the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff followed policies to ensure patient information was kept confidentially and only shared with authorised personnel. Staff discussed the impact of patient’s conditions changing with patients and their carers and relatives and how they could take steps to maintain patient comfort as much as possible. Staff updated patient records and shared current patient conditions with partner agencies. Community nursing teams had frequent contact with patients, relatives and Kate’s Home Nursing staff to share how best to provide care.

Staff communicated with patients and their relatives and provided information on how they could feedback about their experiences of care. This included how to complain about care.

Managers made notifications to external bodies as needed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns.

There had been no formalised complaints about the service in the previous 6 months. However, any negative comments received in patient feedback were responded to promptly to resolve issues and improve patient experience. Staff involved patients and relatives in their investigation of concerns with sensitivity and promoted positive actions to improve care provided.

Managers contacted relatives at a suitable time following a bereavement, for feedback of their experiences. This feedback was shared and discussed at team meetings and used to support improvement where they could identify it.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff looked after people in their own homes and used equipment which helped with patient mobility. The service was open to all people within a region and meetings with community service providers identified people who would benefit from receiving support from Kate’s Home Nursing. Coordinators were proactive in contacting patients to explain what people could expect from the service and how they could access support when they needed it. In addition to this a website was accessible for all which explained the services offered.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt able to give their views. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and were attending additional training in autism and learning difficulties.

Managers had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment using empathy and sensitivity. They used their training and experience to help people understand what impact their decisions would have on themselves and their family. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.