Custom Home Care

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 the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 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. Members of staff delivered person-centred care and people were happy with the care they received. One person told us, “[The staff] are a mixture of ages. Some experienced, some learning.” A relative told us, “[The staff] are absolutely fine. They are pleasant, professional and get on with the job.” A member of staff told us how they delivered person-centred care, “Care is tailored to individual needs and preferences and it revolves around the person’s specific likes, dislikes, and history, rather than just doing a list of tasks. People are involved in developing person-centred care and support through active communication to identify their care needs and preferences and this is recorded in their care plan and risk assessment document.”

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. We did not hear any concerns about access to health and care professionals. People were either independent in accessing professionals or relied on family members for support. Members of staff contacted other professionals such as GPs or emergency services if required. A relative told us, “[Members of staff] know what they are doing. They try and engage [family member] in conversation. They have that dementia knowledge.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. People and their relatives told us communication between themselves, members of staff and the management team was good. Telephone, texting, email and WhatsApp was used to keep in touch. A relative told us, “Communication is very good. [Staff] support me and keep me informed of anything that happens.” Another relative said, “Communication is brilliant between us all. The carers, me and the registered manager.” However, people’s communication preferences were not recorded in their care plans and no specific reference was made to communication styles or aids for people with learning disabilities. We discussed this with the registered manager and asked them to make improvements.

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 their relatives told us they knew who to contact if they had any concerns or worries about the provision of care and support. One person said, “The registered manager is very approachable and always there to help.” A relative told us, “I have shared my concerns when I noticed on the camera the carers were not talking to [family member]. It has been resolved. They were very responsive.” Another relative told us, “For any concerns I have had, [the provider] responded quickly and were very pro-active. I noticed cigarette burn on [family member’s] sweater. Carers should be supervising him at all times when [family member] smokes. The registered manager was on to it immediately.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider attended multi-disciplinary team meetings where people’s access to specific support was discussed. Positive outcomes for people were noted in these meetings. Information from professionals said, “All professionals agreed [person’s] health and well-being may deteriorate within a care home setting. [Person] is happy at home and is enjoying the social stimulation the carers provide at home.”

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. When we spoke with people, no concerns were raised in relation to equity of experience or access to care and support. A member of staff told us, “I ensure everyone gets the same quality of care by ensuring the standard of care is consistent and delivery is tailored to each person’s needs.”

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. People had forms in place which confirmed what action emergency services should take in the event of an emergency situation. However, people’s care plans did not have any specific information about people end-of-life care wishes or expectations.