1 Homecare Bradford

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care plans were co-produced with people and families. Reviews took place on a regular basis. Due to the nature of the service provided, updates were recorded during every visit to people’s homes with any areas of concern discussed with people and families immediately. Families who did not have daily contact with their relatives said they were confident that the provider was effective and trusted them to deliver good care.

Feedback from relatives included, “The carers try their best, they do what they can, if there are any problems they give me a ring” and “[My relative] can be quite stubborn and can refuse support. The carers are good at coaxing [them] to do things”.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care plans demonstrated that care was delivered in a person-centred way and people’s wishes were always considered.

One staff member told us, “We do get enough time to help people, it doesn’t feel rushed, if we feel a person needs longer, managers do listen and give us more time”.

People who required support with meals were provided with choice, and their preferences were respected. Food preparation generally met people’s needs though there were some individual comments made about food presentation needing to be improved.

People told us staff communicated clearly, explaining care tasks before carrying them out. People confirmed consent was routinely sought, demonstrating respectful and person-centred practice.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Information included in care plans confirmed the provider maintained links with partners and stakeholders to ensure good continuity of care for people. This included handover notes from previous care providers which were validated during introductory meetings to plan services with people and families.

People told us staff supported them to contact healthcare professionals if required.

One person told us, “If the carers feel I may need to see a district nurse they say that if I don’t call them, they can.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The team worked together well to support people to be as independent as possible. Changing needs were communicated back to the office team with the involvement of people and families so that these were understood and if needed actions taken. Staff said communication was good and if they ever had questions, they felt comfortable approaching the manager or speaking with families.

People said they were happy with staff and management. Relatives said they had trust in staff, particularly when they did not live with their loved ones so depended on the provider to check in at regular intervals.

All people said carers explained what they were doing and asked if they were happy during every visit.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Best practice guidelines were followed throughout. Stakeholders from partner organisations recognised the role that the service played as a homecare provider. The service treated people as individuals, and care plans represented this well. The level of activity varied from person to person to suit their circumstances and preferences.

The provider worked with people, families and healthcare professionals to ensure outcomes were as positive as possible. Protocols were in place meshing with local arrangements for anyone on end-of-life care. Staff told us this system worked and they understood what to do and who to communicate with if circumstances required it.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Consent was recorded consistently before starting with the provider, in care plans and at reviews. People understood what this meant as it was described in plain language. Some people had specific wishes which were recorded and respected. People confirmed these were being followed with consistency. Families acknowledged that staff tried their best to have their loved ones comply with care and treatment but that they had the right to refuse. Their kind persistence was highlighted by families as a positive aspect of care. Staff saidthey knew to record any instances if people refused support and discussed issues with families and management.