Home Instead – Eastbourne and Hailsham

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider ensured a thorough initial assessment was conducted for each person prior to support commencing.Leaders gathered information from people, their relatives and friends, as well as external professionals, such as GPs. This process ensured a consistent and holistic approach to ensure they had the most up to date and relevant information. Care plans detailed people’s life histories and current goals. This enabled the provider to match people with staff who shared similar interests and work experiences. New staff to a person’s support team were always introduced prior to care visits. All people and relatives told us this process worked extremely well, and they valued their staff teams. This demonstrated the providers values to ensure people were in control of their care journey from the very start. Staff said care plans contained information about people’s health and social care needs. Staff were informed of any changes to peoples care needs via the providers electronic app. This ensured any changes could be made and delivered in real time. The provider had effective oversight of these processes to ensure a consistent and exceptional person-centred service for people.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Where people were at risk, staff worked with external professionals to ensure good outcomes. For example, one person was at risk of choking. The provider worked with the person and an external professional to ensure appropriate guidance was in place to support staff. The guidance was personalised and reflected the person’s food preferences. It evidenced the person’s capacity and right to make unwise decisions, and how staff could support them safely to mitigate any risks. Care plans detailed people’s preferences, likes and dislikes which staff knew well.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

The provider was consistently proactive in working with other services to support people and their relatives at any stage of the care journey. For example, a person had an extreme fear of accessing healthcare treatment. Staff worked with them to gain their approval to source treatment options and a suitable clinician who could support the person’s emotional needs. The provider collaborated with the person and the clinician to develop a personalised plan. This worked exceptionally well to reduce stress and anxiety leading up to and during the appointment. As a result, the person received treatment they desperately needed. This had a positive impact on both their physical and emotional wellbeing.

People told us how the provider had gone above and beyond to support them when they experienced barriers to getting care and treatment from other services. A relative told us about their frustrations of not being able to get clinical support for their loved one when their health had deteriorated. They said, “[Provider] took over for me to ensure [person] was ok. I utterly trust them. I actually scolded myself that I didn't go to them in the first place for help. It took a whole weight off my mind and [person] got the help they needed.” The provider told us about barriers they had experienced in trying to work collaboratively with some healthcare services. To ease this, they created a role dedicated to maintaining contact with healthcare services to reduce delays to critical care decisions. The provider consistently advocated for the rights of people to ensure continuity of care and positive outcomes.

Feedback from external professionals was consistently positive around the working relationship they had with the provider. Comments included, “Good communication takes place between [leaders], staff and me. If I have a question, I receive a quick reply” and “The provider is able to communicate within their service very well. All staff I speak to at Home Instead appear fully informed of changing situations.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Where people lived with specific medical conditions such as diabetes, staff were provided with information on these in the person’s care plan to enable them to deliver appropriate care. People and relatives told us staff knew their food preferences and encouraged them to be active. Comments included, “They do try to encourage [person] out of the house to walk around the block to give them some fresh air and exercise. [Person] prefers they sit and play cards or sing with them”, “Staff always encourage exercise” and “All food is prepared by staff, but they consult [person] about their choices.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had a person-centred approach, focusing on keeping people at the centre of all they did. People and their relatives told us that staff monitored and reviewed their needs to ensure they were met.They spoke positively about the care delivered by staff. Staff monitored people’s outcomes and achievements to see where they could support them.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People and relatives told us how staff understood and respected their right to refuse care or treatment.Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and ensured that they asked for consent and offered choices to people.A staff member said, “It's about allowing that person to talk about the decision; not offering our opinion but rather us drawing out their opinion so they can make that decision themselves, to make that informed choice.” Care plans were personalised and detailed on people’s capacity to make decisions. Where people were assessed as lacking capacity to make specific decisions, best interest decisions were carried out. These were documented and showed who participated in the decision-making process and how the decision had been reached.