Chenai Holistic Home Care Agency Ltd

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 39 (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.

People and relatives told us the service did not always communicate with them about changes to their care and support. A person said, “If I raise an issue, they say they will sort it, but I rarely hear back." A relative said, “Communication is appalling, they simply don’t listen."

Despite this some staff gave us examples of how they responded to people’s individual needs. A staff member told us, “There have been times when I stayed longer to comfort a client who was feeling anxious and confused. We always aim to make a positive difference in people’s lives.”

Records we viewed where people were asked if the service met their needs were positive, however these did not always match the feedback we received from people and relatives we spoke with.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider did not have an appropriate system in place to ensure they were able to monitor people’s call times or the continuity of their care. People and relatives consistently told us they did not always know what staff would arrive and their calls were too close together. A person said, “I’ve had different carers every week, and none of them seem to know my routine."

As stated in other sections of this assessment report, the records we looked at did not assure us people were receiving a joined up, flexible or consistent service.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Whilst people’s communication needs were detailed within their care plans, people consistently told us staff did not always understand or listen to them which meant communication was often difficult.A person told us, “It is awkward to understand them, yes I’d say I do find the language barrier a little worrying sometimes in case we get the wrong end of the stick." Another person said, “I have to repeat instructions every time because they don’t seem to understand anything.” A relative said, “[Person] often has to repeat themselves because staff don’t listen the first time.”

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

We were not assured people and relatives were always listened to or aware of who they could speak with. A person told us. “If something goes wrong, it’s hard to know who to speak to or who will listen or help." A relative said, “The managers don’t seem to listen to concerns." People and their relatives told us when they raised concerns they were not always responded to effectively and changes needed were not always monitored and embedded.

A complaints process was in place; however, we were not assured about the response or oversight of complaints. As detailed in the safeguarding section some complaints required a more detailed response to the information recorded.

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

People did not consistently receive the care they needed at a time they either chose or was previously planned. This was because the service did not have effective oversight to ensure people received their care calls at consistent and planned times.

People and relatives told us consistently they were not listened to which impacted on their outcomes.

On a review of the on-call communication log we noted a staff member had recorded a missed visit in January 2025. However, it did not appear on the missed visit record held in the office for the same period. A complaint was identified as being incorrectly filed within the compliment records. Oversight of systems did not demonstrate the providers systems ensured people’s experiences were being logged correctly, information was accurate and that appropriate actions were being taken as a result.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

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 plans contained limited detail about people’s end of life wishes and preferences. For example, one care plan stated support with palliative care was not needed. However, their care also involved other professionals from a palliative care team. The care records included this information but there was no detail about how staff from the service took account of this aspect of care, what their involvement may or may not be, how they worked with the other team and/or how the person would be supported with their health needs

Staff had received training in end-of-life support.