SRP Homecare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Comprehensive assessment processes evaluated people’s physical, medical, and emotional needs, identifying personalised goals agreed directly with the individual. These milestones considered people's historical skills, current abilities, and future aspirations. Crucially, potential barriers to progress were identified and mitigated during the initial planning stages. Care assessments were regularly updated, and staff were notified of any changes to people's requirements in real time via an instant messaging platform. This digital workflow ensured care delivery was adjusted and remained responsive to changing needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based

The registered manager ensured care, treatment, and support were consistently delivered in line with evidence-based guidance, legislation, and recognised good practice standards.
Care plans detailed people's individual requirements clearly, providing staff with precise, actionable instructions on how to meet their specific clinical and daily needs. For example, where applicable, care records featured dedicated sections outlining the exact nutritional and hydration support required during scheduled visits, ensuring safe and effective dietary management. This consistent application of best-practice guidance promoted positive outcomes, effectively supporting people to live happily, safely, and independently within their own homes.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved

The provider fostered a joined-up approach to care through positive engagement with relatives and external healthcare professionals. People with specific clinical or well-being requirements were effectively supported to access the right specialists, including dietitians and community mental health teams. This multidisciplinary collaboration ensured individuals received coordinated support from professionals who were familiar with their complex needs and preferred communication styles.

To maintain continuity, the registered manager utilised efficient systems to ensure critical information was shared in a timely manner among everyone involved in the person’s care. This included the use of detailed hospital passports, which clearly documented individuals' health conditions, medication needs, and personal preferences to ensure seamless communication during transitions between services. This cohesive approach guaranteed that care delivery remained safe, responsive, and fully aligned with people's individually assessed needs and choices.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff were proactive in monitoring people’s physical and mental health, identifying early signs of changing needs or potential deterioration. Care plans detailed individuals' specific healthcare requirements and personal wellness goals, providing clear guidance on nutrition, hydration, and exercise to promote long-term well-being. People were supported to attend routine health and medical appointments, with staff working closely alongside community health teams to ensure preventative care was prioritised.

By focusing on empowerment rather than restriction, staff encouraged people to lead active lifestyles and participate in physical and social hobbies they enjoyed. This consistent and preventative approach to health management enabled people to maintain their independence, maximise their physical capabilities, and achieve positive health outcomes.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Incidents were effectively analysed to verify that outcomes were appropriate and to identify any necessary actions to enhance the quality-of-care people received. People's health was monitored proactively, with staff demonstrating a clear understanding of their responsibility to report changes in needs and escalate concerns to relevant healthcare professionals without delay.

A robust internal communication process supported this responsive approach. One staff member told us, "The first thing is sending a message to the office, then I call [the registered manager] who will advise the next step” and a relative said, “When i flag any concerns we decide how to address them and I’m confident they are addressed.” This collaborative review process ensured that care strategies were updated to drive continuous service improvement.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, this was not always appropriately documented.

All staff completed mandatory Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training and could clearly articulate how this framework guided their daily practice. When individuals lacked the capacity to make specific choices, staff worked collaboratively with families and healthcare professionals to ensure decisions were always made in the person’s best interests. Staff feedback demonstrated a clear commitment to empowering individuals and always assuming a person had capacity unless proven otherwise. Highlighting this approach, one staff member explained, "I support the person to make their own decisions wherever possible and follow best-interest procedures when they cannot make a specific decision themselves." Whilst another stated, "The Mental Capacity Act is there to support people to make their own decisions wherever possible. I wouldn’t assume somebody lacks capacity just because they have dementia, a disability or difficulty communicating."

While staff understood capacity principles, care records did not always demonstrate how individuals' right to make choices was fully documented or respected. For example, 1 care plan outlined a specific limitation on an individual's daily lifestyle choices, despite records confirming they had full mental capacity. The documentation lacked vital information to show whether the person had consented to this restriction, nor did it detail how staff should respond if the individual chose to exceed the stated limit. For people with full capacity, any parameters around their daily routines must be mutually agreed upon and clearly recorded to protect their rights and prevent unnecessary limitations on their freedom.