Hillingdon

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.

People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People told us they were involved in planning their own care. They explained staff followed their care plans and provided good quality care and support. People said the agency was responsive when they requested changes. Comments from people using the service and their relatives included, “Carers will always ask me if I need anything else before I leave. They are attentive”, “We find they have flexibility around the care” and “Managers are always accommodating and responsive to our needs.”

Managers developed care plans which explained how people liked to be cared for. Staff told us they were able to view care plans before visiting a new person. A staff member commented, “Care plans are clear and give me a good understanding of what is expected before I visit.”

People received continuity of care. They were supported by the same regular care workers. Staff worked in collaboration with external health and social care professionals when needed. They shared information with others, when needed, to ensure people received continuity of care.

The provider had an emergency on-call system where people using the service, staff or others could ring a manager at any time for advice or support. The provider had contingency plans to help ensure people’s care would not be impacted in different emergency scenarios.

The agency provided information for people in formats they understood. People received a copy of their care plan and other key documents, which included information about recognising abuse and making a complaint. The provider translated these documents into different languages and produced large print or easy to read versions when needed.

Managers assessed people’s communication needs and made sure staff understood these. For example, staff supported some people using a range of pictures, objects of reference and mobile applications. The provider matched staff who could speak people’s language. A relative told us this was important and helpful because the person being cared for could not speak or understand English.

Staff worked with relatives and different professionals to understand how to support people who did not use words to communicate. They had helped to create a visual pictorial guide and timetable for 1 person to explain what the person would be doing with staff each day.

The provider listened to and involved people. People gave their views during initial assessments and reviews of their care. Managers regularly telephoned them and visited them to ask for their views about the service. People using the service, relatives and staff completed satisfaction surveys about different aspects of the service. The provider analysed the responses from these and acted when improvements were needed.

There was a suitable complaints procedure. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and who to contact if they had any concerns. Their comments included, “I spoke with the manager when I was unhappy about something, and they listened to me” and “I am confident complaints would be dealt with.” Managers investigated complaints and made improvements because of these. They also worked closely with the complainant to ensure they were satisfied with the outcome.

The provider ensured equity in access. Staff supported people to access the services they needed. For example, attending medical appointments and being out and about in the community when this was part of their planned care. Staff gave us examples about how care visits were adjusted to help people access the services they needed. For example, staff had worked longer than the allocated hours for 1 person when an appointment they were supporting them with was longer than expected. The person had missed a mealtime, and the staff ensured they provided support after the appointment by preparing a meal.

Staff had advocated for people to ensure they received support from other services. For example, contacting housing associations and other healthcare professionals.

The provider supported some people in the community to learn skills including travelling safely and using shops.

The provider ensured equity in experiences and outcomes. The registered manager assessed and planned for people’s diverse needs. They made sure barriers to providing care were identified and mitigated. Staff liaised with people and their relatives to make sure they felt their needs were being met. Staff undertook training to understand about equality and diversity.

The provider supported people to plan for their futures. They asked people if they had any wishes for end-of-life care. The agency worked with other healthcare professionals to continue to provide support for people when this was possible and the person’s choice. Staff undertook training to understand about good end of life care.

Staff supported people to plan objectives and work towards these when this was part of their commissioned care package. For example, supporting some people to learn new skills to prepare for more independence.