My Homecare Yorkshire

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.

People received care that was centred around their needs.

People consistently told us their support reflected their preferences and routines. One person told us, “They know what I like and make sure I’m happy before they go.” Relatives said care was coordinated around people’s individual needs.
Care plans were centred around people’s needs and staff tailored their care in response to people’s health conditions, such as dementia or stroke. The management team conducted regular reviews to ensure care plans were kept updated and remained relevant.

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.

The provider coordinated care effectively by working with external partners when needed.
Staff and the management team maintained effective communication with district nurses, social workers and GPs, ensuring timely escalation of any issues linked to catheter care, falls or nutrition for instance.

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

Care notes and plans were available in people’s homes and electronically, and relatives who opted in could monitor visit records and medicines via the electronic records, with people’s consent.

Relatives told us staff communicated clearly during care, explaining each step: “They talk to [person] and tell them what they are doing.” Staff adapted information to meet people’s individual communication needs.

The provider also used surveys and quality calls to seek and share information with people and relatives.

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 policies and procedures in place to manage complaints and concerns. We reviewed how this was being managed and found it to be appropriate.

People said they felt listened to. Some people described how the management team had responded quickly when they had requested a change in their staff team, with the manager resolving it immediately.

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

People were able to access appropriate and timely care when required, including during weekends and bank holidays. One person said, “I get the same support seven days a week.” Staff ensured timely visits for essential routines such as morning support for day‑centre transport.
The provider had reliable on‑call arrangements, with senior care staff and managers sharing responsibility.

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.

In our review of records, feedback from people, relatives, staff and the management team we found people using the service were not being discriminated against and were accessing the care they required. People from different backgrounds were treated equally, and staff demonstrated sensitivity to individual needs, such as stoma care, textured modified diets or routines shaped by neurological conditions.

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.

At the time of our inspection, the provider was not caring for anyone who required end of life care, but staff had been trained to provide care to people at the end of their lives. The management team told us which healthcare professionals they would involve, if required. There was a policy in place that focused on how the service provided compassionate end of life care.