Verity Healthcare - Haringey

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.At our last assessment we rated this key question ‘Good’. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Not all support plans accurately reflected people’s current support care needs. For example, a person’s support plan referred to them being able to use stairs, but this was not accurate. There was a lack of detail recorded within 1 person’s support plan relating to guidance provided by the local nutrition and dietetic service pertaining to their PEG feeding regime. Another person’s support plan provided contradictory and unclear information about the level of nutritional support required by staff. This meant there was a risk that relevant information was not captured for use by staff to demonstrate the appropriate care to be provided and delivered in line with people’s support needs.

The provider stated the majority of people using the service required reablement support. Although each person had a support plan in place, there was little specific information recorded detailing and describing their individual care and support needs to aid their reablement. For example, people’s preferences and goals were not clearly identified and recorded relating to their reablement package.

The provider demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and care needs of individuals and the local community. Staff worked to tailor support in line with these needs.

However, care delivery was not always fully joined up or flexible and did not consistently promote continuity. For example, people did not always receive care from the same staff, so they experienced a lack of continuity of care. People and relatives spoken with stated this meant they repeatedly had to tell staff about their care and support needs. Following our assessment the provider wrote to us and told us where continuity of care had not occurred, this was where staff were unwell, on annual leave or where a member of staff no longer provided support to a person using the service because of their poor performance.

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

Support plans recorded people’s communication needs to guide staff on how best to communicate with the people they supported. However, people and relatives spoken with expressed concerns about some staff members ability to effectively converse and communicate with them. A person told us, “They [staff] do a good job but there can be a bit of a language barrier.” However, by contrast there were other staff who spoke very little. They told us, “I just feel some could work on a more human level as I have to be there as a bit of an intermediary sometimes.” Relatives also raised the unsuitability of infantile language used by some members of staff. For example, “We’re going to change your nappy” when referring to an older person. Following our assessment the registered manager told us that where staff’s first language was not English, staff were given the opportunity to attend English lessons to enhance their communications skills.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider told us they encouraged people who used the service and relatives to share feedback about the quality of the service provided. Overall, the results of the survey recorded the service was well-regarded, with most people feeling safe, respected, and well cared for. Areas for improvement cited related to communication, continuity of care, scheduling and staff training. Although there was no action plan to accompany the latter; these areas were referenced within the provider’s key quality improvement action plan.

We received mixed feedback about contact provided to people and relatives. Not all relatives we spoke with received consistent contact from the provider. Comments from people using the service and relatives were variable and included, 'We can contact them [Verity Healthcare] easily if we need to', 'We don't often have contact with the office but can get in touch with them if needed', 'When I have contacted them [Verity Healthcare] with my concerns, they tell me they will speak to the staff. I never know if it has happened as they don't call me back with an outcome' and 'They [Verity Healthcare] don't get back about any issue, give no feedback.'

The incidence of complaints at the domiciliary care service were low. Arrangements were in place to record, investigate and respond to any complaints raised with the service. The provider had a system in place for the monitoring and recording of compliments and positive feedback. A well-known external independent review site for homecare providers recorded 12 positive comments up to our assessment on 3 and 4 September 2025.

The provider made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. The provider understood how to access specialist support should this be required and developed links with local health and social care teams.

Discussions with people using the service and those acting on their behalf implied they had not experienced discrimination or inequality. Care records demonstrated people were able to access services, including a range of external healthcare services and professionals when needed.

There was no evidence to suggest people experienced delays in healthcare provision. A relative told us staff were alert to medical changes for their family member. They told us, "They [staff] recognise when [person using the service] is less well. We ask for feedback on the medical attention they get."

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Improvement was needed to ensure all people using the service received a consistent quality service supported by staff who knew them and fully understood their support and care needs. While people and relatives spoken with felt safe, several implied the irregularity of their core staff team could be detrimental to them or their family member receiving good care.

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.

The registered manager confirmed no one using the service was assessed as being at the end of their life. The registered manager advised where people required end of life care and support, they would work with healthcare professionals, including palliative care specialists and others, to provide a dignified and pain-free death that was as comfortable as possible.