Faith Home Care 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 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 ensured that people were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions. Staff worked in partnership with individuals to respond appropriately to any changes in their needs. People received personalised care that reflected their wishes, preferences, and circumstances.

Staff had access to up‑to‑date electronic care plans containing important, person‑centred information such as interests, daily routines, and preferred approaches to managing their health. They understood the importance of getting to know each person to meet their individual needs effectively.

Daily notes were completed to record the care provided, and these were promptly audited by the management team. This enabled them to identify any changes in people’s needs quickly and ensure continuity of care.

People and their relatives told us they valued receiving support from a consistent team of staff who knew them well. One person said, “I am involved in my own care plan and will speak up when I need anything, or if anything medically changes for me. The staff always listen to me, are very respectful, and understand my medical condition.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, enabling care to be joined‑up, flexible and supportive of choice and continuity.

The registered manager told us they aimed to deliver consistent care with familiar staff, helping to build trusted relationships and provide safe, person‑centred support. Systems were in place to share information between staff and the office team, ensuring any changes to schedules or care needs were communicated promptly and acted upon.

Staff knew when to escalate concerns and worked with other professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. The service sought timely advice from other professionals, helping people access appropriate services and supporting fully integrated care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Peoples care plans were kept up to date and reflected current needs.

An Accessible Information Standard Policy was in place, and the registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of how information should be adapted when people had specific communication or accessibility requirements.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, offer ideas, or raise concerns about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and kept them informed about any changes made as a result of their feedback.

A clear complaints policy and procedure was in place, outlining the steps someone should take if they wished to make a complaint. This ensured all concerns were properly investigated and that people received a timely response.

The registered manager operated an open‑door policy and told us she wanted people to feel confident approaching her about anything. One person said, “If I had any concerns I would ring the office. They are easy to get hold of, very responsive and sort anything out”.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed without delay. The registered manager upheld people’s rights to equal access to health and care services, regardless of their background. Care was delivered in line with each person’s assessed needs, and staff provided support reliably and as planned.

The provider monitored visit attendance through an electronic log‑in and log‑out system. If a visit was missed or a staff member was running late, the system alerted the office team. Staff then contacted both the worker and the person using the service to check on the situation.

An out‑of‑hours system was also in place, enabling people to access support from senior staff during emergencies.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who may be more likely to experience inequality in their care or outcomes and tailored their care accordingly.

The service had procedures in place relating to equality and diversity, and staff had completed training to help them understand and reduce inequalities that could affect people’s experiences or outcomes.

We did not identify any concerns regarding how people experienced the service. There was no evidence that anyone was treated less favourably or that outcomes differed based on personal characteristics, background or individual support needs.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including end‑of‑life care, in a way that enabled them to make informed decisions about their future.

Care plans we reviewed did not include future planning or end‑of‑life considerations. The absence of person‑centred future planning meant the provider could not demonstrate how people were being supported to express or record their wishes in a meaningful way. There was also no evidence that these discussions were being held proactively.

Although no one was receiving end‑of‑life care at the time of the assessment, and we did not find evidence that people had been placed at risk or that their choices had been overlooked, the limited documentation provided little assurance of good practice in this area.