Great Park Homecare

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 remained 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 received person-centred care that reflected their needs, preferences and wishes.

Staff spoke positively about the people they supported. Staff also told us they worked with people to ensure the care delivered was person centred. One person said, “You get to know how they like things to be done. They are happy if you are consistent.” Another staff told us how they supported people to gain confidence and develop their independence skills during mealtimes. We reviewed daily notes and found the information entered by staff was person centred and captured their preferences and needs.

People told us about the person-centred care they received. One person said, “We are delighted with the care they provide and don’t know how we would manage without the level of personalised support they offer. They go above and beyond what would normally be expected and we are delighted.”
 

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.

At the time of the assessment, the provider had recently changed systems to a new digital platform for accessing care records. Staff told us they were not yet sure how the new system would work, and how they would be able to access people’s information including assessed needs. However, staff told us they would contact healthcare professionals such as GPs, in the event of someone presenting with concerns such as urine infection symptoms.

The registered manager also told us they worked closely with partnership agencies to support people’s needs. For example, they worked with the incontinence service and occupational therapists to support people to access additional equipment for their homes. The registered manager told us people are supported during their pre-assessment to establish what support they need. This includes the time they prefer their care visits to take place. The manager told us, “I never say we can’t do the time, but I will offer alternative times available.” And “I will go on the first visit with the carer. We are a small team so I like to keep the continuity.”
 

People and relatives had access to information about their care and support and were kept informed about visits and changes to their care.

Relatives told us they had access to care records to ensure they were involved in their family member’s care. One person said, “I have access to the care records through the relatives’ portal, that is so useful especially when I am away.” Another person said, “I have a rota, so I know who is coming and when.” The provider also told us how they ensured people were informed if staff were running late.
 

The provider 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 sought feedback about the service.

The provider had created a forum for people using the service and arranged for this group to meet in person to gather feedback about the service. There was also an annual feedback survey which went out to people and staff. At the time of this assessment the provider was gathering and analysing the results for this year. People told us, “[Provider] arranged an informal meeting of other clients receiving care from Great Park which was lovely to meet and share good practice with other clients over a cup of tea.”
Staff also told us, “I do feel we are listened to… [registered manager] seems to have a good rapport with family members. They all seem to know [registered manager] and staff know they can contact [them].”

People told us they and their families were involved in informal reviews with the provider. People told us they had not had to raise concerns, but they felt able to do so if required.
 

People were supported to access the care, support and treatment they needed.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place, and most staff had completed relevant training at the time of our visit. This helped staff understand potential barriers people may face when accessing care and support. People told us they were supported to access the care they needed. One person said, “I had a hospital appointment but needed support so the GP arranged for a carer to go with me – I felt so much safer.”

We reviewed care records and found staff supported people to access their communication aids. For example, staff ensured one person’s glasses and mobile phone were always left accessible to them before they left the person’s home.
 

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who may be at risk of inequality in their experience or outcomes and adapted care and support to meet their needs.

Relatives were positive about the experiences their family had. One person said, “There was an issue a while back when [family member] was struggling, but [provider] contacted us saying they thought [family member] should go to hospital, and arranged it complete with the forget-me-not flower on [their] bed, so people were aware of [their] dementia. Then they saw [them] back home when [they were] discharged.”

The registered manager told us how they worked with people to manage safe access to their homes. They said, “People with key safe numbers: we don’t give them out over the phone, so within the care app, only the visiting carer can see the number…I advise people to not put key safe boxes right in front of the house where it is so visible.”
 

People were not always 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 the assessment, no one was receiving end-of-life care. We reviewed people’s care plans and found no detailed information around future planning, preferences or wishes. This meant that people’s future care may not be delivered in line with their best interest, wishes or preferences. The registered manager explained how they would work with relatives to capture this information if people were actively receiving end of life care.