Metro Homecare Limited

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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans did not always fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. While some people stated their care plan reflected their current needs, others stated that there were elements of their health and lifestyle that were incorrect or missing.

For example, one person stated that their care plan failed to highlight some health conditions they said still impacted them, while it included other conditions that they said did not affect them. The provider demonstrated that that they had assessed these conditions and how they impacted the person in separate and detailed document. However these had not included these within their main health care plan. The person had informed the office staff how one condition impacted their daily life but stated that their care plan had not been changed. One person said, “I’ve had issues with the care plan, it’s full of mistakes. I’ve tried to get it revised how my conditions affect me.”

People were involved in the planning of their care. There was detailed guidance on people’s daily routines and what care they needed on each supported call.

The provider and staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities. The provider considered the needs and preferences of different people. They understood the need for flexibility and joined up working with partners. However, feedback on the continuity of their care was mixed.

Some people stated that they get the same preferred carers regularly, although others stated that they consistently received different carers. One person said, “It would be better to have consistency with a smaller number of carers.” Another person said, “I’ve always had a sizable group of girls.” Some people said they had made requests to be supported by specific people who they liked and who understood them. People said that this was sometimes changed, others commented that it hadn’t, and that they continued to receive carers who they didn’t prefer. One person said, “I’ve asked to have certain carers as I get used to them.”

People's communication levels were assessed and recorded. Care plans detailed how people were able to convey their needs and wishes, and any support people would need to do so.

The registered manager confirmed that the service did not support anyone who required information about their care in alternative formats such as large print, braille, or easy read, but could provide this support if required. The registered manager recognised the importance of accessible information and matched a carer who spoke a specific language with a person with whom it was their primary language.

Information about people, that was collected and shared, met data protection legislation requirements. Confidentiality and Consent forms, relating to people’s care, had been completed.

People know how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues. People reported that they has received visits from senior staff to their homes to check on the quality of support staff were providing and asked them questions about their care.

The provider had a complaints policy and people had details of how to make a complaint. We reviewed some complaints that the provider had received, and actions were in place to resolve these.

People could access care, treatment and support when they need to and in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removes barriers or delays and protects their rights.

People’s communication needs were assessed, and discussion took place during the initial assessment phase which considered what adjustments or resources people might need to access information about their care and support.

People were supported in a person-centred way to ensure equitable experiences and outcomes.

The registered manager and provider were alert to potential inequality issues. Management recognised staff from different backgrounds and this approach applied to acknowledging people’s diversity and individuality.

The provider had an Equality and Diversity policy in place, and staff practice and feedback showed a focus on maintaining equality for all those being supported.

People were supported to plan for their future needs. At the time of the inspection, no one was being supported at the end of their lives, but the registered manager confirmed that systems were in place to support people with collecting and supporting their advanced wishes.

People had been supported with end-of-life care, with the provider working closely with families, district nurses and palliative care teams to ensure people received dignified care. Peoples’ spiritual and cultural beliefs were captured in assessments which supported these wishes. The provider had an end-of-life policy in place that drew on best practice guidance on advanced care planning.