Mimarcare 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.

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 79 (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 and those important to them were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care plans reflected people's preferences, routines and what mattered most to them, helping staff provide consistent, personalised support.
Relatives described care that reflected people's individual routines, preferences and personal goals. They explained staff understood what mattered to their family member and adapted how support was delivered to respect those choices.
 

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.

Staff worked alongside families and healthcare professionals to help ensure care remained coordinated over the course of people's care. Relatives valued the continuity of care they experienced. Familiar staff understood people's routines, preferences and communication styles, reducing the need for people to repeat themselves and helping trusting relationships develop over time.
 

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

Relatives consistently told us they were kept informed about changes in their family member's care and wellbeing. The provider adapted its communication to reflect individual preferences, ensuring people and those important to them received information in a way that best met their needs. Relatives also had access to electronic care records, enabling them to remain informed about the care and support being provided.
 

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Relatives consistently described an open, collaborative culture where their views were actively sought, valued and acted upon. One relative explained that evening visit times were adjusted following their feedback and additional support was introduced to enable them to continue attending church whilst remaining confident their husband was safe and well supported. As their circumstances changed, the provider reviewed the arrangements again and adapted the care package to reflect the family's evolving needs. This meant people remained in control of decisions about their care and continued to receive support that reflected what mattered most to them.

Feedback from relatives consistently demonstrated they were genuine partners in planning and reviewing care rather than passive recipients of information. They described how the registered manager "always answers questions or suggests help or solutions", worked collaboratively with staff and families to identify the best ways of supporting people and helped them rearrange care to meet changing needs. Another relative described the registered manager as "always available" and "so flexible with our requests". This meant people and those important to them had confidence that they could raise ideas, ask questions and influence decisions, knowing their views would be listened to and acted upon. As a result, care continually evolved alongside people's changing needs and personal circumstances, helping people maintain the routines, relationships and lifestyles that mattered most to them, whilst giving relatives reassurance that they remained active partners in shaping the support their loved one received.
 

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The provider removed barriers to accessing care by adapting support to people's individual needs and preferences. This included accommodating requests for fewer care staff to reduce confusion for a person living with dementia and providing male or female care workers where these preferences were important to people's wellbeing and lived experiences. As a result, people received personalised care in a way that worked for them.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Assessments explored people's preferences, life experiences and individual circumstances to help ensure care reflected what mattered most to them. We received no feedback to suggest anyone experienced discrimination, inequality or unfair treatment.

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 and, where appropriate, those important to them were involved in discussions about future care and support needs. Relatives told us the provider discussed how support could increase if circumstances changed and adapted care to reflect people's wishes to remain living at home for as long as possible. These wishes were reflected in personalised care plans and reviewed as people's needs evolved.