Holistic Homecare 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.

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.

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. Staff provided person-centred support to people. Where possible people were matched with their own staff, to ensure people received support from staff with whom they had a good rapport. Care records were individualised and contained details about people's life history, preferences and religious and cultural needs. For example, 1 person liked staff to remove their shoes when entering their home. A relative said, “They (staff) work for [name].”

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. People were supported by a core team of staff, who knew them well. People received regular newsletters which shared key achievements and events happening at the service. A relative said, “I can get through to the office. If I have a query, they are quick at getting back to me. If I need to change care times, they are responsive.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were provided with information which was accessible to them. For example, where people had provided feedback about the service, this was provided in written, verbal, pictorial and email formats, dependent on people's preference. Information, such as survey outcomes, were provided to people and stakeholders in a range of languages. People also had detailed communication plans in place, which guided staff about people's communication needs and preferences.

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 told us they felt listened to. People were involved in regular reviews about their care, and relatives were also involved where appropriate. People and relatives told us they could raise concerns, knew how to make a complaint if they wished to do so, and action would be taken to resolve their concerns. A relative said, “We really appreciate the carers. They are excellent, very committed, very empathetic, respectful and we appreciate the consistency of the service, and it doesn’t feel impersonal. We have good strong relationships with the carers.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to attend health appointments where required, and records evidenced staff contacted external healthcare agencies where required. Such as dentists, GP's and emergency services. A person said, “Staff contact my doctor about my health. If I have an appointment the carer is always with me.”

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. People and relatives were involved in giving feedback about the service. This feedback was used to improve outcomes for people, for example, the provider focused on encouraging deeper relationship-building and active listening as part of their continuous improvement focus. People were supported to achieve what was important to them. For example, 1 person was supported to attend cultural cafes and befriending groups, to make them feel part of their community. A relative said, “[Name] likes that they are regular care workers. [Name] has a friendship with them. [Name] likes the friendliness of the staff and that they can have a joke. They are a similar age. They try and match the support workers with the people, so they are compatible.”

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. People's future goals and wishes were explored and worked towards. Where people had made advanced decisions about their care and support, such as not attempting resuscitation, this information was contained with people's care records. At the time of our assessment no one was receiving support at the end of their life.