Home Instead Senior Care

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.

Care plans were person centred and demonstrated people were at the heart of the assessment.

Care plans included people’s routines and how they liked to be supported. Care plans included people’s backgrounds and detailed information on support required such as with personal care, oral care and when out in the community.

We saw evidence that staff followed and understood people's care plans in daily records as well as staff telling us. People and relatives were also involved in completing care plans.

Staff told us they knew how people liked to be supported and gave us examples of people’s preferences. Staff told us that care plans were helpful, and it helped them in their roles. Staff told us if they ring management with an update, it is acted upon immediately and care plans are updated.

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.

People had a positive relationship with staff and had access to services. Staff told us that people had access to health services when needed. Staff completed daily notes when care was delivered to ensure people received continuity of care.

The management team told us the service ensured where possible for people to have the same care staff to form positive relationships and people received good care provisions and continuity of care. Care staff told us they know people and their needs well. We analysed the services call data which also showed good punctuality and continuity.

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

People were given information in a way which met their communication needs. The provider met the Accessible Information Standard whereby they could provide information in alternate formats, when needed. People’s communication needs and preferences were recorded within their care plans.

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 and relatives were able to share feedback about their care through regular reviews and surveys.

We saw systems were in place to obtain feedback from people and involve them in decisions such as regular reviews with people on their care. Quality monitoring systems were in place to obtain feedback from relatives and analyse them.

There were systems to manage concerns and complaints. A complaint policy was in place that detailed the process of managing complaints. No formal complaints had been received. Staff were also able to tell us the process to manage complaints and concerns, which was escalated to management for review.

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

People benefitted from approaches which embraced collaboration. Leaders actively worked in close partnership with health and social care partners to ensure people had access to the support, equipment and services they needed, when they needed it. We saw evidence of joint working with occupational therapists and other services.

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’s equality characteristics such as their race and religion were recorded in their care plans. The cultural and spiritual needs of people were taken into account when providing a service. The management team told us people were free to practice their religion and care plans showed that people were supported in this area.

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.

Staff we spoke with assured us that they were familiar with people's 'Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) records or RESPECT forms and the importance of them. Care plans were clear in showing peoples choices in relation to their resuscitation status and end of life wishes.

At the time of our assessment, we viewed a person who was in receipt of end-of-life care. The staff attending had the appropriate end of life training, as well as skin integrity training. We saw the service joint working with multi agencies to ensure the person was comfortable and their wishes were respected and dignified.