Jays 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service 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. Care records reflected personalised approaches, supporting people to receive care that was tailored to their preferences and circumstances.

People’s care plans were regularly reviewed with them, and their relatives to ensure staff had up to date information about each person’s care and support. People and their relatives told us they were happy with their care and support. People received care that was clearly personalised. A relative said, “I can imagine that [Name’s] home environment can sometimes feel like very long days, but these carers that come to see [Name] really break it up for them and I know [Name] enjoys their company.”

The service 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 were able to access support which was designed to meet their individual needs and preferences.

People received care and support from a consistent team of staff who knew them well. Staff worked well with health and social care professionals to ensure people received joined up input from everyone involved in their care. 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had their communication needs assessed, and plans were put in place to meet these needs.

Communication was effective within the service; we received positive feedback about the way the service communicated with relatives and staff. The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand.

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

People told us staff delivered care in line with their preferences and needs. Relatives were confident the registered manager and provider would deal with any problems effectively. The complaints policy was aligned with best practice for handling concerns. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and access support and were confident they would be listened to.

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

Staff understood and were knowledgeable about the individual barriers people faced when accessing other services. Staff assessed people’s diverse needs in this area. Individualised support plans were then implemented which detailed how best to support people to access services safely and effectively.

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.

Staff training included equality and diversity, and their practice was checked through regular spot checks, supervisions, and ongoing support. Policies and procedures were aligned with current equality legislation, ensuring both people and staff were treated fairly, consistently, and with dignity.

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.

At the time of this assessment, no one was receiving end of life care. However, the registered manager told us plans for the future would be considered early, with people and their family members as appropriate.