Cornwall Home Care Limited

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

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, recruitment and governance.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff did not always have access to the information they needed to support people safely and in line with their preferences. Care plans had not been updated for several months, and we could not be assured they were an accurate reflection of people’s current needs. The registered manager had identified care plans as an area for improvement and was in the process of updating them. Care plans did contain person centred information about people’s backgrounds, preferred routines, likes and dislikes.

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 service had a small team, and staff regularly visited the same people. One relative told us, “There is, rapport, trust and understanding and this gives my relative peace of mind.” Another told us, “The service tried to be flexible and accommodate requests for changes.” However, there was a number of short visits (18% of visits during a one-month period were less than half the planned length). A relative told us, “They do their very best with the time restraints.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People did not always have information in a format that was accessible to them to support their understanding. For example, in another language. The provider told us they would put this in place immediately.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had not carried out surveys to gather feedback on people’s experiences. The provider did have a complaints log but did not consistently reflect what, if any, actions had been taken to mitigate or improve people’s outcomes.

However, the complaints process was available in people’s homes. One relative told us, “There was an incident that was reported to the registered manager, and the problem was solved quickly.”

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

People were supported to access health and social care services as required. One professional told us, “They [provider] were offering additional time for a person despite it not being commissioned – we increased package of care to allow for these additional needs.”

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We observed staff treating people as unique individuals, using their preferred name.

Staff and leaders 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 their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to any experience of discrimination and inequality from the service.

Staff told us they knew people well and they showed an awareness of people’s individual needs, their differences, likes, dislikes and preferences.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy. People's care plans were person centred and set out aspects of people's characteristics, beliefs and preferences to ensure people's protected characteristics and needs were respected. The provider did support people to attend social events, a relative told us, “Sometimes the carers will take [relative] down to tea afternoons, she loves to go.”

One relative told us, “Never let [relative] down and now [relative] knows most of them, loves them to bits.”

People were not always 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.

Care planning documentation lacked information regarding people making important decisions about their life, including end of life care. At the time of the assessment, staff had completed end of life training.