Monarch Home Care Services

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 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 their care was individual and tailored to their needs. One relative said, “They are really flexible in meeting my relations needs.”

There were systems in place to ensure people were involved with the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their care. Care plans detailed individual preferences and what was important to the person, this meant people were at the centre of their 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.

The registered manager told us, and we saw there were systems in place to monitor and review care. This included provisions to ensure consistent care was delivered.

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

Communication care plans were in place and detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. The registered manager confirmed information was provided to people in a format or language they could understand if requested.

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 told them what had changed as a result.

People felt listened to and involved with their care and knew how to complain. A person told us, “If I got any complaints I would probably phone Monarch themselves to discuss with them, but there’s never been any need to”,

Feeback was sought from people regularly, either face to face, over the telephone or by completing surveys. The information was reviewed and analysed. This information was then used to make improvements to the service and for individuals.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the providers own policy and procedure.

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

Although no concerns had been identified, there were processes in place that the registered manager could consider if concerns arose.

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.

The registered manager was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and were able to tell us the action they would take if concerns arose. There were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care.

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.

End of life care plans were in place for people when needed, they had been completed with people and those important to them. These had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time. Staff had received training in this area and were able to tell us about this. One staff member said, “This is a sensitive subject so we have to be at our best to deliver good care at these times”.