CVB 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

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 good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 ensured that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with them to respond to any changes in their needs.

Care plans reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. For example, information included guidance on meaningful conversations, preferred topics of interest and topics to be avoided.

Staff told us they would confidently recommend this provider to others seeking a supportive and professional workplace, as well as to families looking for compassionate and reliable care services. People we spoke with did not raise any concerns.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, ensuring care was coordinated, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider and staff worked collaboratively with unpaid carers and other professionals in an open and flexible way to ensure care was joined up and centred around the person. This approach helped ensure consistent communication and continuity of care across different services and support networks.

People valued the continuity of care, as it meant they were supported by familiar staff who understood their needs and preferences, helping them to feel comfortable, confident and well supported.

Staff told us that ongoing professional support increased their confidence and contributed to delivering safer, higher-quality and more consistent care.

The provider did not always ensure that information was available in formats tailored to people’s individual needs.

Assessments identified people’s communication needs, and these were documented within care plans. However, some people did not speak English as their first language, and information within was not routinely provided in their preferred language.

The manager confirmed that an Accessible Information Standard policy was in place, which required the provider to ensure information was available in accessible formats and, where appropriate, in a range of languages. However, we were informed that translation of documents was arranged only on request. This meant the provider was not consistently meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard.

Despite this, staff and people spoke positively about communication, describing it as effective and timely.

The provider supported people to share feedback, raise concerns, and be involved in decisions about their care, treatment, and support. Systems were in place to enable effective communication, including the use of an electronic platform to support timely information sharing and coordination of care.

The provider described an open and transparent approach to receiving feedback, complaints, and suggestions.

People and professionals did not raise any concerns.

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

The provider tailored their service to respond flexibly to people’s individual needs. For example, we saw 1 person’s support was adapted in line with their changing needs and the times when support was required, ensuring timely access to care. Care arrangements were adjusted to reflect changes in people’s circumstances, preferences and health needs, helping to minimise delays and maintain continuity of care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who may be more likely to experience inequality in their care or outcomes and tailored support accordingly.

The service had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy which made it clear that discrimination would not be tolerated and that staff were required to complete EDI training. Records confirmed staff had completed this training, and those we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of its importance.

People did not raise any concerns about discrimination.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes. This meant they did not consistently have sufficient information to make informed decisions about their future care, including end-of-life preferences.

Staff had not received training in end-of-life care, which limited their confidence and ability to support people to have meaningful discussions about their wishes.

The registered manager advised they were aware of people’s preferences and that documentation was held within people’s homes. However, this was not available to review at the time of the assessment.

This lack of training and accessible documented planning reduced assurance that people’s end-of-life wishes would be consistently understood and respected, increasing the risk that care may not be delivered in line with their preferences.