Homecare For You Dudley

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Systems for reviewing care records were not always effective. Although formal reviews were undertaken, care plans and risk assessments were not consistently reviewed and updated following incidents. This meant records did not always reflect people's current circumstances, changing needs or any risks identified as a result of incidents. As a result, there was a risk staff may not always have access to accurate and up-to-date information required to provide person-centred care.

However, people received care that was generally planned around their individual needs, preferences and personal circumstances. The provider told us care plans were reviewed annually to help ensure they remained relevant and reflected people's needs and wishes. Care plans we reviewed contained important person-centred information, including people's preferences, likes and dislikes, routines, and aspects of their personal history and background. This information helped staff understand the people they were supporting and enabled them to provide care tailored to individual needs.

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.

Rotas we reviewed showed the provider made efforts to maintain consistency in staffing arrangements, so people were supported by staff who knew them and understood their needs.

However, consistency was not always achieved, particularly where two staff members were required to provide support. While 1 member of staff was often consistent, the second staff member changed frequently. For example, records showed 1 person was supported by 16 different care workers over a 28-day period.

People and their relatives told us they had seen improvements of staff consistency more recently and their gender preferences of staff were listened to. A person’s relative told us, “[Person] was asked about gender preference, and my relative said they preferred female staff. They have always sent females.”

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

People's communication needs and preferences were identified within their care plans, which provided staff with guidance on how best to communicate with them. This helped to ensure information was shared in a way people could understand and enabled staff to provide personalised support.

Care records included details of people's individual communication requirements and outlined any adjustments staff should make when interacting with them. For example; 1 care plan advised staff to speak clearly and slowly, allow time for the person time to respond and not to rush the person with their communication.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Feedback from people indicated they were not always aware of the formal complaints process. For example, when asked whether they knew how to make a complaint, one person told us, "No, at the moment, no." Whilst information was available, we could not be assured people fully understood how to raise concerns or make a formal complaint if they wished to do so.

Some concerns were raised regarding communication with the office and how concerns were responded to. Not all people felt their views were consistently listened to, and some people reported dissatisfaction with the way concerns had been handled. However, most people and relatives described the service as approachable and told us they were able to contact the office when required. Several people reported concerns they had raised had been addressed and resolved.

People were given opportunities to share their views about the service and influence the care they received. Information was available explaining how people could raise complaints, concerns, compliments and provide feedback about their experiences. The provider had systems in place to gather feedback, including satisfaction questionnaires and discussions during care plan reviews.

The provider had recently distributed satisfaction questionnaires to seek the views of people using the service. The registered manager told us the survey process was ongoing, and responses were still being received at the time of our assessment. Feedback was also sought through annual care plan reviews, providing opportunities for people to share their experiences and influence the care they received. As the questionnaire process had not yet concluded, the provider had not completed an analysis of responses or identified any themes and trends. Therefore, we could not yet assess the effectiveness of these arrangements in driving service improvement.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems were not always effective in ensuring people had equitable access to support and protection when concerns arose. Records showed information was shared by staff and concerns were documented within electronic care records, but safeguarding concerns were not always identified or escalated appropriately. Auditing processes did not consistently review the content of care notes, and opportunities to make safeguarding referrals were missed.

However, people's needs relating to communication, culture, religion and access to information were identified and recorded within assessments and care plans. Records included details of people's preferred language, religious beliefs and any support required to help them communicate effectively. The registered manager told us, one of the services aims was to go above and beyond when supporting people.

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 had equity in experience and outcomes. Staff undertook training about equality and diversity. The provider actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Senior staff 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 people’s experiences in care.

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.

Care records did not consistently show people's future wishes and preferences had been discussed, recorded and reviewed should their needs change. The assessments and care plans reviewed did not contain dedicated sections relating to end of life care, advance care planning, or arrangements for future decision-making. There was limited information about how people's spiritual, cultural or personal wishes would be respected if they became seriously ill or approached the end of their life.