Maisy Care at Home 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 since the location changed. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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 their relatives had been involved in planning the support they needed. Care plans set out people’s specific wishes, for example, the ways people liked to be supported, what people’s preferred personal care products were, how they liked to dress and which activities they enjoyed.

Relatives told us they were happy with the service people received, which met their specific needs. Comments from relatives included, “The provider understands my relative really well.” Staff said the provider was focused on meeting people’s specific needs, to help them develop skills and have a good quality of life. This approach was reflected in the records of support provided.

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.

The provider worked in partnership with other agencies, to ensure people received continuity of care. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records. People and relatives told us they worked well with the provider and specialist health services to ensure continuity of care.

Providing information

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

People’s communication needs had been assessed, and a communication support plan had been developed with each person.

At the time of this assessment , people did not require information inaccessible formats. However, the registered manager confirmed the pre-assessment process explored how people would receive information in a way which was right for them.

Leaders told us some people had limited communication when they were anxious. We saw support plans which informed staff how to support people with this.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints procedure but lacked systems to track concerns and complaints. The registered manager wrote these down in a diary and told us they were responsive in addressing any concerns. We saw that concerns had been entered into a planner but follow ups or actions taken were not documented. This lack of documentation meant the provider could not effectively monitor themes, ensure concerns were managed timely, or demonstrate learning and improvement to prevent reoccurrence.

The registered manager told us they felt listening to people and seeking regular, informal feedback was important in shaping care. This approach was reflected in practice, where people were routinely asked about their experiences through day-to-day conversations, key working sessions and reviews. Feedback was used to inform changes to care delivery and ensure support remained responsive to people’s needs and preferences.

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

Assessments included the support people required to access the care they needed, including any specific equipment or adaptations. People’s assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as their needs changed.

For example, 1 person had a walking frame which enabled them to move around their home more independently and safely, reducing the risk of falls and promoting their confidence and wellbeing. The person told us, “Since having this I know I can get around a lot better if I need to.”

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.

The management team were aware of the barriers people with disabilities may face and worked with a range of agencies to support people to overcome these. People’s needs were reviewed regularly to ensure they were being supported in the least restrictive way possible which still met their needs.

The registered manager had a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination and had embedded this within the service culture, ensuring staff challenged inappropriate behaviour and promoted equality and inclusion. For example, the registered manager supported their staff when they had experienced racism. This meant the registered manager ensured staff were treated with dignity and respect, and their individual needs, preferences and protected characteristics were consistently recognised and supported.

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 had been supported to plan for the future and plans outlined the support they needed when their health declined. The provider had been effectively supporting people with end-of-life care. People had been supported to develop a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). These gave clear information about people’s needs, how they should be met to ensure continuity of care, and whether they wished to be resuscitated or not.