Ivy Homecare Services 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 – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service registered on 31 May 2024. This key question has been rated 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.

People and relatives told us the service provided care that reflected their individual needs and preferences. They said staff understood their routines and supported them in ways that felt personal. A relative said, “They listen to us. We feel involved in the care plan.”

Care plans were in place and people, and their relatives were involved in reviewing them. The registered manager updated these plans when people’s needs changed. Staff confirmed they were informed when updates were made.

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 told us they usually saw the same carers, which helped with continuity of care. They said staff arrived on time and stayed for the agreed duration of visits. A person said, “Carers always arrive on time.”

Relatives said communication with the office was good and they knew the out‑of‑hours number if they needed help. Staff told us they were able to contact the registered manager at any time.

The registered manager said they worked with GPs, hospital teams and the local authority when required. People confirmed this support was helpful when health needs changed.

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

People knew how to contact the office and the out‑of‑hours number. Information could be provided in people’s preferred languages where needed. Matching staff with shared language reduced communication barriers.

Staff communicated updates through calls and messages, and relatives said they received information mostly via the telephone call when changes were made to care arrangements.

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 and that the service responded to their views.

The registered manager asked for feedback informally through regular contact, and formal feedback was gathered through surveys[KD1][EC2]. People told us they knew how to raise a concern and were confident any issue would be dealt with.

[KD1]Did you see the results of the surveys and were there any analysis documents or did the RM explain what she did with the information ?

[EC2]Yes

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

People accessing the service were able to receive support that met their needs. They told us visits took place at agreed times, and staff stayed for the full duration of the call.

Staff were matched to people based on language and cultural needs, which relatives said made communication easier. A relative said, “It helps that staff speak the same language.”

People told us they were supported to attend health appointments or to make contact with professionals when needed.

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 told us their wishes and preferences were respected. Staff had good understanding of people’s cultural and religious needs. Care plans showed basic information about these aspects, and staff were matched in ways that supported people’s comfort and communication.

People told us their experience of care was positive, and staff treated them fairly and respectfully. Feedback gathered as part of the assessment was positive.

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 relatives told us they were comfortable discussing changes in care with the registered manager and said they would be supported if needs increased. They told us the manager kept in contact and checked how things were going.

The registered manager told us they reviewed care plans when needs changed and updated records accordingly. People confirmed these updates were shared with them.

At the time of the assessment the provider was not supporting anyone with their end-of-life care.