Homecare For You Solihull

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. 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.

Staff spoken to on inspection, knew people and their preferences well, and care was planned to meet people’s individual needs, such as visit times.

However, some information in care records was generic and not specific to the person’s own individual needs, overlooking what was important to the individual, which made it harder for staff to deliver person‑centred care.

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 had teams of staff who covered care calls within specific local areas. The rotas we looked at showed the coordinator tried to keep a consistent staff team supporting people wherever possible. Rotas were also arranged in line with people’s gender preferences.

Relatives gave positive feedback about their loved ones’ regular carers. They told us, “[The person] has 2 regular carers that know them very well now,” and “[staff member] is absolutely lovely with them.”

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

The management team understood their responsibility regarding the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard requires health and social care services to identify, record, and meet people’s communication and information needs so they can understand and be understood.

People’s communication needs were documented, and the managers gave examples of how they could provide information in a different format should they need to such as providing documents in large print.

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.

The provider sent out quality surveys to people and their relatives, results were analysed and used to make improvements to the service. People were supported to complete their survey if needed.

Management also sought people’s views in additional ways. One relative told us, “The management call us to check we are happy and sometimes they do just pop in and do what is called a spot check.”

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

The provider ensured care was always available in emergency situations. A prioritisation risk assessment was carried out by the management to identify people with greater dependency levels, so that their essential care needs would be met first during any emergency or service disruption.

The registered manager explained that they could access staff from another branch should the need arise and they maintained good communication with families to support contingency arrangements, including families stepping in as a last resort.

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 provider took steps to ensure people who spoke languages other than English were able to communicate with staff. Management shared examples of how they had matched people with carers who spoke the same language. Where this could not be achieved, they worked with families to identify the most effective ways of communicating and to develop personalised communication techniques. A small, consistent group of carers who were able to communicate effectively with the person were allocated to their visits to ensure care was delivered in a way that met their individual communication 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.

The provider was not supporting anyone receiving end‑of‑life care at the time of the inspection. However, people were not routinely asked about their future wishes, which meant the service could not be assured that care would be planned in a way that reflected individuals’ preferences and upheld their dignity. The managers had already recognised this as an area requiring improvement and had begun initiating these conversations and documenting people’s wishes within their care records.