Casbrook 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 the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

People told us the care they received reflected their abilities, preferences and preferred personal care routines. They said staff completed support with their personal care to a high standard, taking the time and attention needed to ensure things were done right.

People told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care plans included details around people’s family backgrounds, cultural beliefs and individuals important to them. This helped to ensure people received 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.

People told us they received care at agreed times from consistent teams of staff. One person told us how they required 2 staff to support them with their personal care. They said staff always arrived together on time, which meant there was no delay in care being received. People told us staff stayed for the agreed amount of time and ensured all planned care tasks were completed before leaving. People told us they could request changes to their care and the provider was flexible in accommodating their requirements or wishes. We checked people’s daily records and found that there was a good level of consistency in how their care was organised and delivered. This was evidenced in consistent care times, staffing teams and care call durations reflecting planned times.

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

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. This included where adjustments were needed to ensure people could access and understand information about their care. For example, one person communicated through hand gestures. Their care plan detailed how staff should adapt their verbal communication to maximise the person’s opportunities to meaningfully engage in decisions about their care.

People told us they were informed about changes to their care. They said the provider sent them a schedule of planned visits and informed them if there needed to be changes in times or staff.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. The provider involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy, which detailed how complaints would be handled. The provider had not received any recent complaints. However, people told us senior staff listened and acted upon any feedback to address issues before they needed to be raised more formally.

The provider sent out quality assurance questionnaires to people and relatives to gain feedback about the service. The response to the last questionnaire reflected positive feedback from people about the staff and the overall quality of care people received.

People and their relatives (with consent) were able to access the provider’s electronic care planning system to review care notes. Relatives told us this reassured them care was being carried out as planned. The manager told us this system had been beneficial in monitoring people’s changing needs. For example, relatives could pick up trends from care notes staff may not be aware of. This helped to ensure people had access to their care records and they were involved in overseeing their care.

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

People told us they were fully involved in their care, and staff respected their choices and preferences. The provider had policies and practices aligned with The Equality Act (2010). Staff confirmed they had received training, which helped promote an awareness of people’s protected characteristics.

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.

People told us they did not suffer any discrimination in relation to equity in access, experience or outcomes. Care plans addressed protected characteristics and outlined how to prevent barriers to fair treatment. For example, 1 person’s care plan included considerations for cultural adjustments to ensure care was sensitive to their beliefs.

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 provider engaged with people to determine their preferences for their future care arrangements. This included conversations about their wishes if they were to need support with end-of-life care. The provider had made links with a local hospice to help plan and deliver responsive end of life care. This helped people stay in their homes during this phase of their life.