Daisychain Homecare 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 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 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. The provider had improved the way they ensured people were at the centre of their care. Information gathered during assessments was clearly reflected in people’s care plans, which described how people wished their care to be delivered in line with their specific needs and preferences. Staff confirmed they had access to this guidance which supported them to understand people’s routines, likes and dislikes. This helped promote person‑centred care and supported people to maintain choice and control in their day‑to‑day lives.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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. The provider had various systems in place for people to share feedback about the service. The provider informed people about the changes they had made. For example, the provider sent people regular newsletters which detailed changes and improvements the provider was making. People told us they knew how to raise concerns, and the majority of people told us their concerns had been acted upon and resolved. A small number of people told us they had raised issues with staff not always wearing their identification badges or using PPE correctly, we asked the provider to follow up on this.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 provider had improved the way they recorded people’s needs, views and wishes, including for those who may be more likely to experience inequality in their care. People’s care plans reflected this information clearly. For example, a person living with dementia had a care plan that explained how this affected them and the approaches staff should use to help reduce any distress during personal 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. People told us they had been asked about their wishes and felt involved in discussions about their future care. When we reviewed people’s care plans, we found important decisions people had made about their care and treatment at the end of their lives was included. Staff also had access to this information, and it was regularly reviewed as part of the provider’s improved care‑planning process.